York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, says council leader

YORK'S council leader wants an internal review of the city's controversial Lendal Bridge and Coppergate traffic restrictions, in the wake of a damning report by a Government expert - saying the way the schemes have been run is not good enough.

Traffic adjudicator Stephen Knapp's judgement on the two schemes, released yesterday, said City of York Council had "no power" to fine motorists who breached the rules on both routes and branded warning signs "inadequate".

The restrictions remain in force today, with the council saying it is seeking legal advice over Mr Knapp's report and its potential implications. A decision on whether the Lendal Bridge trial is continued, extended or abandoned is due to be made by the Labour cabinet on May 6.

Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion.

"Many successful cities around the world have embarked on the same bold journey. But we accept the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect.

“Therefore, despite assurances from the Department for Transport on signage, traffic restrictions being in place along Coppergate since the late 1960s and the Lendal Bridge trial mirroring other restrictions around the country, and in light of new information from the traffic adjudicator, I have written to the chief executive confirming my request for an internal review of both the Lendal Bridge trial and enforcement of the Coppergate traffic restriction”.

Related links

Promoted stories

Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, is already facing calls to resign or consider his position following Mr Knapp's judgement.

Conservative group leader Coun Chris Steward said: "It is only right the council fully investigates the farce of the Lendal Bridge trial, but it is disappointing Coun Alexander is seeking to pass the buck.

"He should investigate, but he and his administration should take the blame for their choices and their failed policy. The damage is done for what is left of this failed administration’s reputation, but we must and will limit the damage of the trial for the good of York’.

Liberal Democrat leader Coun Keith Aspden has written to Coun Alexander and the council's chief executive, Kersten England, saying the authority has "lost control of events" and continuing the Lendal Bridge closure is "untenable". He said a cross-party scrutiny inquiry should be held.

“Since yesterday’s ruling, the council seems to have just buried its head in the sand, and what we need is decisive leadership to prevent things getting any worse," he said.

“Lendal Bridge should be reopened and the cameras must be turned-off immediately. To do anything else would be extremely reckless and would risk doing further damage to York’s reputation. The council is opening itself up to costly legal challenges and claims of maladministration if it continues to enforce a policy which it has been told is essentially unlawful.

Share article

“We also need to know if the council has any plans to refund the fines issued so far, how much this would cost, and how much legal advice is costing and is likely to cost in the future.”

More than 53,000 penalty charge notices were issued to drivers during the six-month Lendal Bridge trial - which ended in February, although the restrictions are being maintained until a decision on the scheme's future is taken - and almost 10,000 fines sent out for breaching the Coppergate traffic rules between the end of September and the end of February.

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect."
Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.SteveSCA

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

Score: 3

yorkonafork says...3:59pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open. The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through. This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue? At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.

Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open.
The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through.
This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue?
At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.yorkonafork

Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open. The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through. This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue? At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.

Score: -22

Dr Brian says...4:06pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Jimmy no mates and the Ferrett still trying to make us all believe it was somebody else's fault and not theirs Ha Ha if it was not so sad it would be laughable

Jimmy no mates and the Ferrett still trying to make us all believe it was somebody else's fault and not theirs
Ha Ha if it was not so sad it would be laughableDr Brian

Jimmy no mates and the Ferrett still trying to make us all believe it was somebody else's fault and not theirs Ha Ha if it was not so sad it would be laughable

Score: -1

poorlyduck says...4:06pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Shocking piece of backside covering. It's all very well for Alexander to now round on the council officers - surely the cabinet member with responsibility for transport, and therefore the officers who implement it, should resign.

Shocking piece of backside covering. It's all very well for Alexander to now round on the council officers - surely the cabinet member with responsibility for transport, and therefore the officers who implement it, should resign.poorlyduck

Shocking piece of backside covering. It's all very well for Alexander to now round on the council officers - surely the cabinet member with responsibility for transport, and therefore the officers who implement it, should resign.

Score: -21

Brabus says...4:07pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Nice 'apology' there James - given the size of the 'bold journey' I'm assuming you signed this off and therefore you're 'not good enough' is directed at yourself and team rather than 'buck passing' Why not just grab the bull by the horns and go back to the drawing board before your May meeting - it's the only thing that weill give you any chance of a future career

Nice 'apology' there James - given the size of the 'bold journey' I'm assuming you signed this off and therefore you're 'not good enough' is directed at yourself and team rather than 'buck passing'
Why not just grab the bull by the horns and go back to the drawing board before your May meeting - it's the only thing that weill give you any chance of a future careerBrabus

Nice 'apology' there James - given the size of the 'bold journey' I'm assuming you signed this off and therefore you're 'not good enough' is directed at yourself and team rather than 'buck passing' Why not just grab the bull by the horns and go back to the drawing board before your May meeting - it's the only thing that weill give you any chance of a future career

Score: -64

Knavesmire view says...4:07pm Wed 2 Apr 14

The buck stops with you Jimmy. And TSL and No Merrett and the rest. You are the first to put your name in lights when things go well. It works both ways, and you've failed. Resign now!!

The buck stops with you Jimmy. And TSL and No Merrett and the rest.
You are the first to put your name in lights when things go well.
It works both ways, and you've failed.
Resign now!!Knavesmire view

The buck stops with you Jimmy. And TSL and No Merrett and the rest. You are the first to put your name in lights when things go well. It works both ways, and you've failed. Resign now!!

Score: -10

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...4:09pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Teflon Jimmy you are not.

Teflon Jimmy you are not.NoNewsIsGoodNews

Teflon Jimmy you are not.

Score: -77

Archiebold the 1st says...4:12pm Wed 2 Apr 14

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws...
"durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that!
Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.Archiebold the 1st

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

Score: -79

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...4:14pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Failure is confirmed when you start to point the finger.

Failure is confirmed when you start to point the finger.YOUWILLDOASISAY

Failure is confirmed when you start to point the finger.

Score: -93

yorkiemum says...4:14pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Oh dear running scared now are we James? Mmmmm not me gov was those other naughty people! You couldn't make it up!

Oh dear running scared now are we James? Mmmmm not me gov was those other naughty people! You couldn't make it up!yorkiemum

Oh dear running scared now are we James? Mmmmm not me gov was those other naughty people! You couldn't make it up!

Score: -107

Archiebold the 1st says...4:16pm Wed 2 Apr 14

oh and yeh hold an internal review... yeh waste more money.. get the lawyer in and waste more to try and salvage a pile of stool.... do everyone a favour and just leave. Any true leader takes responsbility for their mistakes. After all you had the final say and sign off... coward.

oh and yeh hold an internal review... yeh waste more money.. get the lawyer in and waste more to try and salvage a pile of stool.... do everyone a favour and just leave. Any true leader takes responsbility for their mistakes. After all you had the final say and sign off... coward.Archiebold the 1st

oh and yeh hold an internal review... yeh waste more money.. get the lawyer in and waste more to try and salvage a pile of stool.... do everyone a favour and just leave. Any true leader takes responsbility for their mistakes. After all you had the final say and sign off... coward.

Score: -60

doltare says...4:16pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkonafork wrote…

Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open. The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through. This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue? At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.

What CYC don't get is in Europe a lot of people live right in the town center above shops etc so there's always people shopping! were in York there's very few living right in the center. Plus CYC have allowed that many out of town big developments with free parking then they fine people for coming into town! then they wonder why shops are becoming empty! This council is so stupid they put a farmers market's in Parliament st in competition to there own market when they have plenty of empty stalls in Newgate which they could fill with the farmers! Now with school holidays coming the CYC bring more events onto the street but wont let there own traders out on a Monday! York should be opened back up to locals with more car parks and 2hrs free parking!

[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote:
Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open.
The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through.
This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue?
At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.[/p][/quote]What CYC don't get is in Europe a lot of people live right in the town center above shops etc so there's always people shopping! were in York there's very few living right in the center. Plus CYC have allowed that many out of town big developments with free parking then they fine people for coming into town! then they wonder why shops are becoming empty! This council is so stupid they put a farmers market's in Parliament st in competition to there own market when they have plenty of empty stalls in Newgate which they could fill with the farmers! Now with school holidays coming the CYC bring more events onto the street but wont let there own traders out on a Monday! York should be opened back up to locals with more car parks and 2hrs free parking!doltare

yorkonafork wrote…

Tell you what big Jimmy, name any other city in the world which has taken such a 'bold journey' which has had as many fines, local opposition or as much local & national ridicule as this one and we'll let you keep it open. The ones around europe may work, but then again, they have the appropriate people, who are good at their jobs, thinking about the entire strategy from well before it happens and carrying it on through. This was never going to work in the eyes of the most uneducated, so why did it even go ahead. What did you genuinely think was going to happen? What are you still getting out of it that everyone must be missing in order for this farce to continue? At least 3 people should resign, two more than the number of bridges which should be back open.

What CYC don't get is in Europe a lot of people live right in the town center above shops etc so there's always people shopping! were in York there's very few living right in the center. Plus CYC have allowed that many out of town big developments with free parking then they fine people for coming into town! then they wonder why shops are becoming empty! This council is so stupid they put a farmers market's in Parliament st in competition to there own market when they have plenty of empty stalls in Newgate which they could fill with the farmers! Now with school holidays coming the CYC bring more events onto the street but wont let there own traders out on a Monday! York should be opened back up to locals with more car parks and 2hrs free parking!

Score: -50

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...4:25pm Wed 2 Apr 14

JA, you internal review if you want to, we all know who is ultimately responsible for (your) this mess. How many £millions, thats the question we all want the answer to and where is the money to pay for your incompetence.

JA, you internal review if you want to, we all know who is ultimately responsible for (your) this mess.
How many £millions, thats the question we all want the answer to and where is the money to pay for your incompetence.YOUWILLDOASISAY

JA, you internal review if you want to, we all know who is ultimately responsible for (your) this mess. How many £millions, thats the question we all want the answer to and where is the money to pay for your incompetence.

Score: -82

yorkshirelad says...4:36pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.yorkshirelad

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Score: -119

pedalling paul says...4:40pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.pedalling paul

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Score: 8

BL2 says...4:44pm Wed 2 Apr 14

[quote]Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion. [/quote] Congestion that has been massively increase by this and the previous councils ridiculous schemes!!

[quote]Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion. [/quote]
Congestion that has been massively increase by this and the previous councils ridiculous schemes!!BL2

[quote]Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion. [/quote] Congestion that has been massively increase by this and the previous councils ridiculous schemes!!

Score: -12

X5019c says...4:47pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Resign.

Resign.X5019c

Resign.

Score: -26

Knavesmire view says...4:52pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Whilst I agree that the transport policy of the City needs looking at and dealing with sensibly, at the same time Alexander and Labour made this whole Lendal Bridge scheme 100% political in their approach to it. The calls for resignations are from residents of York who sick and tired of mishandled projects, wasted publicy money, dogmatic Councillors who have no interest in entering REAL debate or listening to the people who elected them. Lendal Bridge is one in a string of such examples, but it has come to embody the whole sorry saga. From Union Terrace to Lendal Bridge people have had enough of this current Council and want them out before they cause any more harm or embarresment to our great City!!

[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree that the transport policy of the City needs looking at and dealing with sensibly, at the same time Alexander and Labour made this whole Lendal Bridge scheme 100% political in their approach to it.
The calls for resignations are from residents of York who sick and tired of mishandled projects, wasted publicy money, dogmatic Councillors who have no interest in entering REAL debate or listening to the people who elected them.
Lendal Bridge is one in a string of such examples, but it has come to embody the whole sorry saga.
From Union Terrace to Lendal Bridge people have had enough of this current Council and want them out before they cause any more harm or embarresment to our great City!!Knavesmire view

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Whilst I agree that the transport policy of the City needs looking at and dealing with sensibly, at the same time Alexander and Labour made this whole Lendal Bridge scheme 100% political in their approach to it. The calls for resignations are from residents of York who sick and tired of mishandled projects, wasted publicy money, dogmatic Councillors who have no interest in entering REAL debate or listening to the people who elected them. Lendal Bridge is one in a string of such examples, but it has come to embody the whole sorry saga. From Union Terrace to Lendal Bridge people have had enough of this current Council and want them out before they cause any more harm or embarresment to our great City!!

Score: -43

cynic3 says...5:05pm Wed 2 Apr 14

I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried? Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - ....... Anyhow, we are all paying the price.

I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried?
Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - .......
Anyhow, we are all paying the price.cynic3

I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried? Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - ....... Anyhow, we are all paying the price.

Score: -70

marvell says...5:06pm Wed 2 Apr 14

I'll tell you the best thing to go to for a review - A MIRROR !!

I'll tell you the best thing to go to for a review - A MIRROR !!marvell

I'll tell you the best thing to go to for a review - A MIRROR !!

Score: -94

SteveSCA says...5:10pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Complete carp. I don't care whether he's Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Raving Loony Save the Whale party. The fact is that this man - through inept research, amateurish planning and disastrous implementation - has presided over a scheme which potentially is going to cost his employers (the City of York and its council taxpayers) hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, plus huge damage to its national and international reputation. If he worked for any private sector business, he would have been escorted from the building already without his feet touching the ground.

[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Complete carp.
I don't care whether he's Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Raving Loony Save the Whale party.
The fact is that this man - through inept research, amateurish planning and disastrous implementation - has presided over a scheme which potentially is going to cost his employers (the City of York and its council taxpayers) hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, plus huge damage to its national and international reputation.
If he worked for any private sector business, he would have been escorted from the building already without his feet touching the ground.SteveSCA

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Complete carp. I don't care whether he's Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Raving Loony Save the Whale party. The fact is that this man - through inept research, amateurish planning and disastrous implementation - has presided over a scheme which potentially is going to cost his employers (the City of York and its council taxpayers) hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, plus huge damage to its national and international reputation. If he worked for any private sector business, he would have been escorted from the building already without his feet touching the ground.

Score: -49

Geoffers says...5:12pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Looks like some senior Labour Party wallah has advised J.A. to distance himself from this one, so as to protect himself from losing a potential MP's seat!

Looks like some senior Labour Party wallah has advised J.A. to distance himself from this one, so as to protect himself from losing a potential MP's seat!Geoffers

Looks like some senior Labour Party wallah has advised J.A. to distance himself from this one, so as to protect himself from losing a potential MP's seat!

Score: -125

matroom says...5:13pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote:
no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws...
"durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that!
Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.[/p][/quote]This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.matroom

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

Score: -151

Thord Gellir says...5:14pm Wed 2 Apr 14

They have had months to get it right. They did nothing. All three of them are completely out of their depths as Councillors. I suspect this is going to cost us a great deal of money in repayments to those who have been fined and fees to the firm that managed the incompetent scheme. Will any of them take responsibility? I suspect not. York deserves better. Thord Gellir The Thunderer

They have had months to get it right. They did nothing. All three of them are completely out of their depths as Councillors. I suspect this is going to cost us a great deal of money in repayments to those who have been fined and fees to the firm that managed the incompetent scheme.
Will any of them take responsibility?
I suspect not.
York deserves better.
Thord Gellir
The ThundererThord Gellir

They have had months to get it right. They did nothing. All three of them are completely out of their depths as Councillors. I suspect this is going to cost us a great deal of money in repayments to those who have been fined and fees to the firm that managed the incompetent scheme. Will any of them take responsibility? I suspect not. York deserves better. Thord Gellir The Thunderer

Score: -130

yorkandproud says...5:16pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.yorkandproud

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Score: -139

yorkandproud says...5:19pm Wed 2 Apr 14

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.

[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote:
no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws...
"durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that!
Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.[/p][/quote]This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.[/p][/quote]This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.yorkandproud

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.

Score: -137

mmarshal says...5:25pm Wed 2 Apr 14

SteveSCA wrote…

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

CYC can't go to court and defend there actions by saying, 'Don't blame us My Lord. A big boy did it and ran away.' OR CAN THEY?

[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect."
Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.[/p][/quote]CYC can't go to court and defend there actions by saying, 'Don't blame us My Lord. A big boy did it and ran away.' OR CAN THEY?mmarshal

SteveSCA wrote…

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

CYC can't go to court and defend there actions by saying, 'Don't blame us My Lord. A big boy did it and ran away.' OR CAN THEY?

Score: -89

T'Marcus says...5:25pm Wed 2 Apr 14

nearlyman wrote…

Whatever happened to the passing buck !!!

Should it be "pass the BUCKET case", Alexander and his rag-time band of miscreants? They have made York a laughing stock. I understand that "Mr. Loophole" has an open an office in the manor. He will make millions on the Alexander band. We won't pay his fines.

[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote:
Whatever happened to the passing buck !!![/p][/quote]Should it be "pass the BUCKET case", Alexander and his rag-time band of miscreants?
They have made York a laughing stock.
I understand that "Mr. Loophole" has an open an office in the manor.
He will make millions on the Alexander band.
We won't pay his fines.T'Marcus

nearlyman wrote…

Whatever happened to the passing buck !!!

Should it be "pass the BUCKET case", Alexander and his rag-time band of miscreants? They have made York a laughing stock. I understand that "Mr. Loophole" has an open an office in the manor. He will make millions on the Alexander band. We won't pay his fines.

Score: -133

Platform3 says...5:36pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

I can't believe I actually agree with part of what St Paul of Pedalling is actually saying but turning the Lendal Bridge fiasco into a political Aunt Sally is a waste of time. Therefore, Mr Pedalling please don't continue to defend the shambolic way that Alexander's Rag-Time Band has gone about this whole sorry episode. Man up and face facts - the political lobby representing the "anti-car party" has tried to introduce this in a dogmatic fashion rather than adopting a structured approach which recognises, respects and takes into consideration all the competing demands and interests. For the record whilst I am a vehicle driver I have no argument about full pedestrianisation of the city centre. However, the centre of our city is that area INSIDE the inner-ring road - not the ring-road itself or areas outside. Pedestrianisation also means no bicycles in the city centre. Let's get rid of those eyesore bike racks which make Parliament Street, Davygate and the like so untidy. Instead have secure bike parking at strategic locations around the edge of the city. For one I won't have to dodge bikes when I walk through town. Oh, and by the way, the Labour group should remember that those who wish to see the end to the internal combustion engine forget that the automotive industry is one of the last major areas of engineering and manufacturing left in this country. If you don't believe this then go and look at regions such as the West Midlands, North-East and so on. The vehicle factories may be owned by overseas companies but they provide skilled employment to tens of thousands. In addition these are the companies who are pouring millions into British research and development to come up with alternatives to oil powered engines. We should celebrate, encourage and, above all, seek to work together to develop an integrated transport strategy fit for purpose run be people who are likewise.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]I can't believe I actually agree with part of what St Paul of Pedalling is actually saying but turning the Lendal Bridge fiasco into a political Aunt Sally is a waste of time. Therefore, Mr Pedalling please don't continue to defend the shambolic way that Alexander's Rag-Time Band has gone about this whole sorry episode. Man up and face facts - the political lobby representing the "anti-car party" has tried to introduce this in a dogmatic fashion rather than adopting a structured approach which recognises, respects and takes into consideration all the competing demands and interests.
For the record whilst I am a vehicle driver I have no argument about full pedestrianisation of the city centre. However, the centre of our city is that area INSIDE the inner-ring road - not the ring-road itself or areas outside. Pedestrianisation also means no bicycles in the city centre. Let's get rid of those eyesore bike racks which make Parliament Street, Davygate and the like so untidy. Instead have secure bike parking at strategic locations around the edge of the city. For one I won't have to dodge bikes when I walk through town.
Oh, and by the way, the Labour group should remember that those who wish to see the end to the internal combustion engine forget that the automotive industry is one of the last major areas of engineering and manufacturing left in this country. If you don't believe this then go and look at regions such as the West Midlands, North-East and so on. The vehicle factories may be owned by overseas companies but they provide skilled employment to tens of thousands. In addition these are the companies who are pouring millions into British research and development to come up with alternatives to oil powered engines. We should celebrate, encourage and, above all, seek to work together to develop an integrated transport strategy fit for purpose run be people who are likewise.Platform3

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

I can't believe I actually agree with part of what St Paul of Pedalling is actually saying but turning the Lendal Bridge fiasco into a political Aunt Sally is a waste of time. Therefore, Mr Pedalling please don't continue to defend the shambolic way that Alexander's Rag-Time Band has gone about this whole sorry episode. Man up and face facts - the political lobby representing the "anti-car party" has tried to introduce this in a dogmatic fashion rather than adopting a structured approach which recognises, respects and takes into consideration all the competing demands and interests. For the record whilst I am a vehicle driver I have no argument about full pedestrianisation of the city centre. However, the centre of our city is that area INSIDE the inner-ring road - not the ring-road itself or areas outside. Pedestrianisation also means no bicycles in the city centre. Let's get rid of those eyesore bike racks which make Parliament Street, Davygate and the like so untidy. Instead have secure bike parking at strategic locations around the edge of the city. For one I won't have to dodge bikes when I walk through town. Oh, and by the way, the Labour group should remember that those who wish to see the end to the internal combustion engine forget that the automotive industry is one of the last major areas of engineering and manufacturing left in this country. If you don't believe this then go and look at regions such as the West Midlands, North-East and so on. The vehicle factories may be owned by overseas companies but they provide skilled employment to tens of thousands. In addition these are the companies who are pouring millions into British research and development to come up with alternatives to oil powered engines. We should celebrate, encourage and, above all, seek to work together to develop an integrated transport strategy fit for purpose run be people who are likewise.

Score: -123

strangebuttrue? says...5:37pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion." James. Very cleverly worded comment although again I believe it is an attempt to mislead as your own reports say we have had a reduction in volume of traffic since 2002 and since 2005 it has remained static so it is congestion and not volume that is the problem. The congestion has increased but only because of your councils, and more particularly Mr Merrett's anti car policies which create congestion in the bid to bully all private traffic out of York. Lendal Bridge was just one more of those anti car congestion and pollution creating bullying schemes. So if you are genuinely concerned about congestion and then just take out all of the anti car schemes put in since 2005. This would probably also have the benefit of reducing the addition pollution your reports say has been created since 2005.

Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion."
James. Very cleverly worded comment although again I believe it is an attempt to mislead as your own reports say we have had a reduction in volume of traffic since 2002 and since 2005 it has remained static so it is congestion and not volume that is the problem.
The congestion has increased but only because of your councils, and more particularly Mr Merrett's anti car policies which create congestion in the bid to bully all private traffic out of York. Lendal Bridge was just one more of those anti car congestion and pollution creating bullying schemes. So if you are genuinely concerned about congestion and then just take out all of the anti car schemes put in since 2005. This would probably also have the benefit of reducing the addition pollution your reports say has been created since 2005.strangebuttrue?

Council leader James Alexander said this afternoon: “The principle of reducing private traffic in our historic city centre is right given the increasing problem we have with congestion." James. Very cleverly worded comment although again I believe it is an attempt to mislead as your own reports say we have had a reduction in volume of traffic since 2002 and since 2005 it has remained static so it is congestion and not volume that is the problem. The congestion has increased but only because of your councils, and more particularly Mr Merrett's anti car policies which create congestion in the bid to bully all private traffic out of York. Lendal Bridge was just one more of those anti car congestion and pollution creating bullying schemes. So if you are genuinely concerned about congestion and then just take out all of the anti car schemes put in since 2005. This would probably also have the benefit of reducing the addition pollution your reports say has been created since 2005.

Score: -105

TheManor says...5:38pm Wed 2 Apr 14

The trial is not illegal, and the advice from the Department of Transport would be fine, if not for all the people given full permission to use the bridge. Yes, subjectively, the signage might not be perfect, but that wasn't the main reason this adjudication was made, particularly with regard to Lendal Bridge - it was to apply the law that says that cameras can only be used to catch those infringing bus lanes. Too many non-bus vehicles had permission to use Lendal Bridge, and thus it was no longer deemed to be a bus lane. The restrictions remain, perfectly validly, in place - it is the enforcement cameras that the council is not permitted to use - so you can cross the bridge without penalty (assuming that they don't put an enforcement officer on the bridge recording registrations manually). I suspect that those given permission to cross Lendal Bridge (and to use Coppergate, for that matter) did so with the full knowledge, and possibly following political pressure, of the relevant councillors. In general, it seems that the organisations given permission to use the bridge in spite of the restrictions are those who would have had a legitimate cause, and quantifiable losses, to highlight why the trial was not a positive move forward for the city; in other words, those who could have caused it to be deemed a failure within the scope of the council's own business user survey, which asks specifically about additional costs incurred to business as a result of the closure. An article in the Press from June 2013 makes it clear that the original plan was only to permit buses, taxis and bikes. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/features/feat ures/10481939.Why_Le ndal_Bridge_is_closi ng_to_traffic/ So, perhaps the question that needs to be answered is who authorised all these exceptions to the closure, and were they all disclosed to the Department of Transport when advice was being sought?

The trial is not illegal, and the advice from the Department of Transport would be fine, if not for all the people given full permission to use the bridge. Yes, subjectively, the signage might not be perfect, but that wasn't the main reason this adjudication was made, particularly with regard to Lendal Bridge - it was to apply the law that says that cameras can only be used to catch those infringing bus lanes. Too many non-bus vehicles had permission to use Lendal Bridge, and thus it was no longer deemed to be a bus lane.
The restrictions remain, perfectly validly, in place - it is the enforcement cameras that the council is not permitted to use - so you can cross the bridge without penalty (assuming that they don't put an enforcement officer on the bridge recording registrations manually).
I suspect that those given permission to cross Lendal Bridge (and to use Coppergate, for that matter) did so with the full knowledge, and possibly following political pressure, of the relevant councillors. In general, it seems that the organisations given permission to use the bridge in spite of the restrictions are those who would have had a legitimate cause, and quantifiable losses, to highlight why the trial was not a positive move forward for the city; in other words, those who could have caused it to be deemed a failure within the scope of the council's own business user survey, which asks specifically about additional costs incurred to business as a result of the closure.
An article in the Press from June 2013 makes it clear that the original plan was only to permit buses, taxis and bikes.
http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/features/feat
ures/10481939.Why_Le
ndal_Bridge_is_closi
ng_to_traffic/
So, perhaps the question that needs to be answered is who authorised all these exceptions to the closure, and were they all disclosed to the Department of Transport when advice was being sought?TheManor

The trial is not illegal, and the advice from the Department of Transport would be fine, if not for all the people given full permission to use the bridge. Yes, subjectively, the signage might not be perfect, but that wasn't the main reason this adjudication was made, particularly with regard to Lendal Bridge - it was to apply the law that says that cameras can only be used to catch those infringing bus lanes. Too many non-bus vehicles had permission to use Lendal Bridge, and thus it was no longer deemed to be a bus lane. The restrictions remain, perfectly validly, in place - it is the enforcement cameras that the council is not permitted to use - so you can cross the bridge without penalty (assuming that they don't put an enforcement officer on the bridge recording registrations manually). I suspect that those given permission to cross Lendal Bridge (and to use Coppergate, for that matter) did so with the full knowledge, and possibly following political pressure, of the relevant councillors. In general, it seems that the organisations given permission to use the bridge in spite of the restrictions are those who would have had a legitimate cause, and quantifiable losses, to highlight why the trial was not a positive move forward for the city; in other words, those who could have caused it to be deemed a failure within the scope of the council's own business user survey, which asks specifically about additional costs incurred to business as a result of the closure. An article in the Press from June 2013 makes it clear that the original plan was only to permit buses, taxis and bikes. http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/features/feat ures/10481939.Why_Le ndal_Bridge_is_closi ng_to_traffic/ So, perhaps the question that needs to be answered is who authorised all these exceptions to the closure, and were they all disclosed to the Department of Transport when advice was being sought?

Score: -120

Geoffers says...5:39pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Well, I hope that they each become personally liable for repayment of fines and associated costs since the report was published. They are ignoring the fact that they are not complying with the law!

Well, I hope that they each become personally liable for repayment of fines and associated costs since the report was published.
They are ignoring the fact that they are not complying with the law!Geoffers

Well, I hope that they each become personally liable for repayment of fines and associated costs since the report was published. They are ignoring the fact that they are not complying with the law!

Score: -90

piaggio1 says...5:41pm Wed 2 Apr 14

See me previous post got pulled.surprise.surp rise.

See me previous post got pulled.surprise.surp
rise.piaggio1

See me previous post got pulled.surprise.surp rise.

Score: -110

matroom says...5:42pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkandproud wrote…

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.

You dont understand it ??? Do you understand the word, pedantic ??

[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote:
no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws...
"durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that!
Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.[/p][/quote]This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.[/p][/quote]This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.[/p][/quote]You dont understand it ??? Do you understand the word, pedantic ??matroom

yorkandproud wrote…

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

This might be the best post ever. I wouldn't know , I don't understand a word of it. Sorry.

You dont understand it ??? Do you understand the word, pedantic ??

Score: -110

Caecilius says...5:43pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.Caecilius

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

Score: -132

bolero says...5:58pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Alexander-Failure. Merrett-Failure. Simpson-Laing-Vote Rigger?

Alexander-Failure. Merrett-Failure. Simpson-Laing-Vote Rigger?bolero

Alexander-Failure. Merrett-Failure. Simpson-Laing-Vote Rigger?

Score: -50

chelk says...6:12pm Wed 2 Apr 14

I have said all along that watching what this lot do is like watching The Muppet Show after this I know I am right ..... A Guy From Strensall yes I used the Muppet Show again.

I have said all along that watching what this lot do is like watching The Muppet Show after this I know I am right ..... A Guy From Strensall yes I used the Muppet Show again.chelk

I have said all along that watching what this lot do is like watching The Muppet Show after this I know I am right ..... A Guy From Strensall yes I used the Muppet Show again.

Score: -105

thecairnman says...6:28pm Wed 2 Apr 14

so its illegal ok why not now bill CYC for all the wasted time and fuel having to use alternative roots.

so its illegal ok why not now bill CYC for all the wasted time and fuel having to use alternative roots.thecairnman

so its illegal ok why not now bill CYC for all the wasted time and fuel having to use alternative roots.

Score: -39

Abdiel says...6:30pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]Here here!,Abdiel

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

Score: -18

Daname says...6:31pm Wed 2 Apr 14

The Press ought to remove the 'scoring' facility from their comments column. The blatant manipulation of the scores is embarrassing. Is somebody salaried to do?

The Press ought to remove the 'scoring' facility from their comments column. The blatant manipulation of the scores is embarrassing. Is somebody salaried to do?Daname

The Press ought to remove the 'scoring' facility from their comments column. The blatant manipulation of the scores is embarrassing. Is somebody salaried to do?

Score: -11

Igiveinthen says...6:34pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Caecilius wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

Here we go again, this is like the Arab/Israel issue neither side wanting to agree and both sides thinking they are right, for crying out loud build some decent roads on the outer fringes of the city, simple really, then you can walk, cycle and bus to your hearts content, just give it a rest.

[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.[/p][/quote]Here we go again, this is like the Arab/Israel issue neither side wanting to agree and both sides thinking they are right, for crying out loud build some decent roads on the outer fringes of the city, simple really, then you can walk, cycle and bus to your hearts content, just give it a rest.Igiveinthen

Caecilius wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

Here we go again, this is like the Arab/Israel issue neither side wanting to agree and both sides thinking they are right, for crying out loud build some decent roads on the outer fringes of the city, simple really, then you can walk, cycle and bus to your hearts content, just give it a rest.

Score: -36

Woody G Mellor says...6:52pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Well James, I hate to say it but, I told you months ago not to listen to those hidden Green Party members you have, ie Anna Semlyn and Dave Ferrett. I also told you that if you let them get their way it will be the end of you as leader of YCC. Show some leadership whilst you still can and Kick those two out now.

Well James, I hate to say it but, I told you months ago not to listen to those hidden Green Party members you have, ie Anna Semlyn and Dave Ferrett. I also told you that if you let them get their way it will be the end of you as leader of YCC.
Show some leadership whilst you still can and Kick those two out now.Woody G Mellor

Well James, I hate to say it but, I told you months ago not to listen to those hidden Green Party members you have, ie Anna Semlyn and Dave Ferrett. I also told you that if you let them get their way it will be the end of you as leader of YCC. Show some leadership whilst you still can and Kick those two out now.

Score: -39

buzzy_bee says...7:33pm Wed 2 Apr 14

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.buzzy_bee

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

Score: -67

carpon says...7:39pm Wed 2 Apr 14

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

Love this , will keep the keyboard warriors entertained for a while.

[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote:
no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws...
"durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that!
Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.[/p][/quote]This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.[/p][/quote]Love this , will keep the keyboard warriors entertained for a while.carpon

matroom wrote…

Archiebold the 1st wrote…

no sh@t.... but yeh you had to seek advice from people as you do not have someone qualified in transport to advise you (how did ferret get a job then!!!)? So they say yeh them signs look good and you decided yeh lets copy all these other schemes around the uk (non of which i've ever heard of) and none i guess involve closing a leg of the inner ring road. City centre traffic isnt an issue james... Its your transport muppets light sequencing that is! even last night as i head to footy.. i wait at a light to go on the A64 past york college and get a red light... WHY!!! There is no f@ckin traffic that can cross over to my lanes! there might be when the p&r opens but not now! so why are there 85 traffic lights that are not need and all set to stupid idiotic sequences? Even when the P&R is open do you really think 4 lights for one direction is required? you are all utter retards! your traffic management in comparison would be like putting bez in charge drug laws... "durrr other cities did it so it must be ok.. coppergate has been closed for cars since 1960... durrrr mr dvla are these ok." course they are going to say yes why would they give a f@ck what you do??? a sign is a sign? it is not their job to make sure your schemes are legal! they would be perfect if it was a bus lane but you morons didn’t think of that! Go live in America where you will fit in.. you are like homer Simpson but less qualified. And you all know the other similarity.

This is the best post ive ever read on here. Brilliant, totally see where your coming from regarding the park & ride. Also at poppleton roundabout, 4 way lights on the ringroad for no obvious reason. MUPPETS.

Love this , will keep the keyboard warriors entertained for a while.

Score: -118

jay, york says...7:51pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Caecilius wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

What a load of drivel! What it comes down to is the labour CYC did not administer the trial properly and refused point blank to be drawn into any debate about it. The people who DO want to debate it have clearly seen that it is not working, the reasons why and how much damage it is doing to the city of York - not just locally. There is so much on the internet, radio and TV channels - and I am more than sure that the Tour de France team must wonder what sort of a City they are coming to. Now CYC have been told by Government that they do not have the power to issue PCNs - it is not legal, therefore they are comitting a crime. So what do they do? - just continue as if nothing has happened! Oh and little Jimmy asks for an internal enquiry to try and distance himself from the whole fiasco.

[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote: Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.[/p][/quote]What a load of drivel!
What it comes down to is the labour CYC did not administer the trial properly and refused point blank to be drawn into any debate about it.
The people who DO want to debate it have clearly seen that it is not working, the reasons why and how much damage it is doing to the city of York - not just locally. There is so much on the internet, radio and TV channels - and I am more than sure that the Tour de France team must wonder what sort of a City they are coming to.
Now CYC have been told by Government that they do not have the power to issue PCNs - it is not legal, therefore they are comitting a crime. So what do they do? - just continue as if nothing has happened! Oh and little Jimmy asks for an internal enquiry to try and distance himself from the whole fiasco.jay, york

Caecilius wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

The only people who whinge and witter are (a proportion of) motorists. Read the debate on this and associated issues: it comes down to motorists - principally, private car drivers - screaming that they're entitled to absolute and unconditional priority, to the complete exclusion of everybody else's interests; blaming everyone and everything but themselves for the consequences, and demanding that the fallout should land on anybody but them. Then portraying themselves as victims whenever they're asked to accept the slightest concession to residents, cyclists, pedestrians, people who use public transport and, basically, to reality. Pedalling Paul and yorkshirelad have it absolutely right.

What a load of drivel! What it comes down to is the labour CYC did not administer the trial properly and refused point blank to be drawn into any debate about it. The people who DO want to debate it have clearly seen that it is not working, the reasons why and how much damage it is doing to the city of York - not just locally. There is so much on the internet, radio and TV channels - and I am more than sure that the Tour de France team must wonder what sort of a City they are coming to. Now CYC have been told by Government that they do not have the power to issue PCNs - it is not legal, therefore they are comitting a crime. So what do they do? - just continue as if nothing has happened! Oh and little Jimmy asks for an internal enquiry to try and distance himself from the whole fiasco.

Score: -72

JasBro says...7:54pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Today's developments are a bit irrelevant. Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations. But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc. We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade. But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.

Today's developments are a bit irrelevant.
Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations.
But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc.
We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade.
But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.JasBro

Today's developments are a bit irrelevant. Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations. But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc. We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade. But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.

Score: -52

calmdownyork says...7:54pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Reality check...The closure of Lendal Bridge has not reduced pollution, it's just created more congestion and moved the pollution half a mile down the road. It's created a slightly better ambience on the bridge itself, but the benefits to tourism are outweighed by the mass exodus of visitors who have unfairly (and illegally) been fined for driving along the inner ring road. It was only a matter of time before cars doing u-turns on Museum St and Duncolme Place resulted in serious injury or death. Bus times have not improved. Clearly none of the aims of the trial have been achieved. Here's a solution....Introduc e a congestion charge inside the city walls, with a couple of exceptions for access to public car parks. Give residents or long stay visitors a substantial discount. Use the proceeds to give every resident a one week free bus ticket to try and encourage a change in behaviour. Give people a taster of alternative and more efficient travel and they may just use it. For the £900,000+ this trial has cost the city, you could have paid for every resident man, woman and child to have a free 1 day bus pass. It's not rocket science. It's called integrated transport, not 'kill the car'.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Reality check...The closure of Lendal Bridge has not reduced pollution, it's just created more congestion and moved the pollution half a mile down the road. It's created a slightly better ambience on the bridge itself, but the benefits to tourism are outweighed by the mass exodus of visitors who have unfairly (and illegally) been fined for driving along the inner ring road. It was only a matter of time before cars doing u-turns on Museum St and Duncolme Place resulted in serious injury or death. Bus times have not improved.
Clearly none of the aims of the trial have been achieved.
Here's a solution....Introduc
e a congestion charge inside the city walls, with a couple of exceptions for access to public car parks. Give residents or long stay visitors a substantial discount. Use the proceeds to give every resident a one week free bus ticket to try and encourage a change in behaviour. Give people a taster of alternative and more efficient travel and they may just use it. For the £900,000+ this trial has cost the city, you could have paid for every resident man, woman and child to have a free 1 day bus pass.
It's not rocket science. It's called integrated transport, not 'kill the car'.calmdownyork

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Reality check...The closure of Lendal Bridge has not reduced pollution, it's just created more congestion and moved the pollution half a mile down the road. It's created a slightly better ambience on the bridge itself, but the benefits to tourism are outweighed by the mass exodus of visitors who have unfairly (and illegally) been fined for driving along the inner ring road. It was only a matter of time before cars doing u-turns on Museum St and Duncolme Place resulted in serious injury or death. Bus times have not improved. Clearly none of the aims of the trial have been achieved. Here's a solution....Introduc e a congestion charge inside the city walls, with a couple of exceptions for access to public car parks. Give residents or long stay visitors a substantial discount. Use the proceeds to give every resident a one week free bus ticket to try and encourage a change in behaviour. Give people a taster of alternative and more efficient travel and they may just use it. For the £900,000+ this trial has cost the city, you could have paid for every resident man, woman and child to have a free 1 day bus pass. It's not rocket science. It's called integrated transport, not 'kill the car'.

Score: -81

carpon says...8:03pm Wed 2 Apr 14

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

Is it not finally time for all York residents to be able to vote for or against closure? If this council can waste so much money then lets have the chance to vote by ballot paper posted to each York property independently counted.Then and only then will we have a true representation of what residents want. York is now an embarrasment and this needs sorting out sooner rarther than politically never.

[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]Is it not finally time for all York residents to be able to vote for or against closure? If this council can waste so much money then lets have the chance to vote by ballot paper posted to each York property independently counted.Then and only then will we have a true representation of what residents want. York is now an embarrasment and this needs sorting out sooner rarther than politically never.carpon

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

Is it not finally time for all York residents to be able to vote for or against closure? If this council can waste so much money then lets have the chance to vote by ballot paper posted to each York property independently counted.Then and only then will we have a true representation of what residents want. York is now an embarrasment and this needs sorting out sooner rarther than politically never.

Score: -138

yorkshirelad says...8:04pm Wed 2 Apr 14

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.yorkshirelad

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

Score: -145

mutley12321 says...8:06pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Hello James, It's a fairly standard business principle. You can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility, this ultimate accountability remains with you. You're on point for this situation. Man up, take responsibility the decision councillors made in your name. Regards, Mutt

Hello James,
It's a fairly standard business principle. You can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility, this ultimate accountability remains with you.
You're on point for this situation. Man up, take responsibility the decision councillors made in your name.
Regards,
Muttmutley12321

Hello James, It's a fairly standard business principle. You can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility, this ultimate accountability remains with you. You're on point for this situation. Man up, take responsibility the decision councillors made in your name. Regards, Mutt

Score: -81

Starboard22 says...8:11pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Giving us people in Cumbria a good laugh. Best comedy show in years.

Giving us people in Cumbria a good laugh. Best comedy show in years.Starboard22

Giving us people in Cumbria a good laugh. Best comedy show in years.

Score: -89

yorkandproud says...8:13pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

Perhaps people will,see,where you are coming from Yorkshirelad. For me though, it's the way this Labour group seem so arrogant when making decisions. Never never ever, listening to public opinion and the needs of the residents. Sadly, their number us up now.

[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]Perhaps people will,see,where you are coming from Yorkshirelad. For me though, it's the way this Labour group seem so arrogant when making decisions. Never never ever, listening to public opinion and the needs of the residents. Sadly, their number us up now.yorkandproud

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

Perhaps people will,see,where you are coming from Yorkshirelad. For me though, it's the way this Labour group seem so arrogant when making decisions. Never never ever, listening to public opinion and the needs of the residents. Sadly, their number us up now.

Score: -161

Matt RSJ says...8:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Can't believe some people still claiming the council are operating legally. so here's another analogy for them to chew over... If I have "no right" being in the West Offices and helped myself to £1.1m of public funds, would I still be able to go in there and claim that what I am doing is lawful? Didn't think so.

Can't believe some people still claiming the council are operating legally. so here's another analogy for them to chew over...
If I have "no right" being in the West Offices and helped myself to £1.1m of public funds, would I still be able to go in there and claim that what I am doing is lawful?
Didn't think so.Matt RSJ

Can't believe some people still claiming the council are operating legally. so here's another analogy for them to chew over... If I have "no right" being in the West Offices and helped myself to £1.1m of public funds, would I still be able to go in there and claim that what I am doing is lawful? Didn't think so.

Score: -190

duffy says...8:39pm Wed 2 Apr 14

And what a shock, as predicted one person challenges it and the council have cocked up. Well again you car haters you better hope the money is not spent because otherwise your council tax bills will no doubt be rising in the future.

And what a shock, as predicted one person challenges it and the council have cocked up. Well again you car haters you better hope the money is not spent because otherwise your council tax bills will no doubt be rising in the future.duffy

And what a shock, as predicted one person challenges it and the council have cocked up. Well again you car haters you better hope the money is not spent because otherwise your council tax bills will no doubt be rising in the future.

Score: -96

mutley12321 says...8:41pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government??
I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere?
Regards,
Muttmutley12321

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

Score: -19

Rollonsummer says...9:00pm Wed 2 Apr 14

I hope tomorrow the Press brings the news that Councillor Merritt and Alexander have resigned for these ridiculous ideas. To say they are now seeking legal guidance on what to do shows how incompetent they really are. It makes me want to take a huge dump on the steps of the council offices to show how disgusted I really am with them.

I hope tomorrow the Press brings the news that Councillor Merritt and Alexander have resigned for these ridiculous ideas. To say they are now seeking legal guidance on what to do shows how incompetent they really are. It makes me want to take a huge dump on the steps of the council offices to show how disgusted I really am with them.Rollonsummer

I hope tomorrow the Press brings the news that Councillor Merritt and Alexander have resigned for these ridiculous ideas. To say they are now seeking legal guidance on what to do shows how incompetent they really are. It makes me want to take a huge dump on the steps of the council offices to show how disgusted I really am with them.

Score: -96

beeryjack5on says...9:06pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,beeryjack5on

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Score: -56

Daname says...9:12pm Wed 2 Apr 14

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,[/p][/quote]Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....Daname

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Score: -2

beeryjack5on says...9:21pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

[quote][p][bold]Daname[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,[/p][/quote]Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....[/p][/quote]Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......beeryjack5on

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

Score: -38

ouseswimmer says...9:23pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Yorks traffic policy is utterly shambolic. It used to be a dreadful trip though York trying to reach Scarborough from Leeds but they built the incredibly invention a dual A64 except North Yorks Council 'forgot' to connect it up to the next bit of the dual carriageway and so huge jams are caused as all the cars reduce to a single carriageway. When there are no jams its a great road to quickly move to a new part of York. Then they built a much underfunded ring road which actually had the reverse effect and made it quicker to simply drive through the city rather than around it. To stop this they came up with a scheme to block traffic from Lendal Bridge causing ever more chaos. If the ring road worked then the city would work but it does not work and in the meantime they have allowed development all along it meaning it cannot now be dualled. What is now needed is an outer outer ring road freshly built with full dual ling all along its length. Once this is complete then the city traffic will flow and they can close as many bridges as they like but until real planning is undertaken we will just continue in chaos.

Yorks traffic policy is utterly shambolic. It used to be a dreadful trip though York trying to reach Scarborough from Leeds but they built the incredibly invention a dual A64 except North Yorks Council 'forgot' to connect it up to the next bit of the dual carriageway and so huge jams are caused as all the cars reduce to a single carriageway. When there are no jams its a great road to quickly move to a new part of York. Then they built a much underfunded ring road which actually had the reverse effect and made it quicker to simply drive through the city rather than around it. To stop this they came up with a scheme to block traffic from Lendal Bridge causing ever more chaos. If the ring road worked then the city would work but it does not work and in the meantime they have allowed development all along it meaning it cannot now be dualled. What is now needed is an outer outer ring road freshly built with full dual ling all along its length. Once this is complete then the city traffic will flow and they can close as many bridges as they like but until real planning is undertaken we will just continue in chaos.ouseswimmer

Yorks traffic policy is utterly shambolic. It used to be a dreadful trip though York trying to reach Scarborough from Leeds but they built the incredibly invention a dual A64 except North Yorks Council 'forgot' to connect it up to the next bit of the dual carriageway and so huge jams are caused as all the cars reduce to a single carriageway. When there are no jams its a great road to quickly move to a new part of York. Then they built a much underfunded ring road which actually had the reverse effect and made it quicker to simply drive through the city rather than around it. To stop this they came up with a scheme to block traffic from Lendal Bridge causing ever more chaos. If the ring road worked then the city would work but it does not work and in the meantime they have allowed development all along it meaning it cannot now be dualled. What is now needed is an outer outer ring road freshly built with full dual ling all along its length. Once this is complete then the city traffic will flow and they can close as many bridges as they like but until real planning is undertaken we will just continue in chaos.

Score: -41

beeryjack5on says...9:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

beeryjack5on wrote…

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

I think I might have been Guy Fawkes in a previous life

[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Daname[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,[/p][/quote]Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....[/p][/quote]Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......[/p][/quote]I think I might have been Guy Fawkes in a previous lifebeeryjack5on

beeryjack5on wrote…

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

I think I might have been Guy Fawkes in a previous life

Score: -46

courier46 says...9:38pm Wed 2 Apr 14

I for one do not want that man (Alexander) saying "our city" because he would not be trying to destroy it if he thought it was.

I for one do not want that man (Alexander) saying "our city" because he would not be trying to destroy it if he thought it was.courier46

I for one do not want that man (Alexander) saying "our city" because he would not be trying to destroy it if he thought it was.

Score: -59

Pinza-C55 says...9:41pm Wed 2 Apr 14

SteveSCA wrote…

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

Yes , if you hit your thumb with a hammer, kick the dog.

[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect."
Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.[/p][/quote]Yes , if you hit your thumb with a hammer, kick the dog.Pinza-C55

SteveSCA wrote…

"… the implementation of this policy has not been to a standard my colleagues and I would expect." Looks like Alexander is already moving to absolve himself and 'his colleagues' from any responsibility for this epic fiasco, and pin all the blame on council officers.

Yes , if you hit your thumb with a hammer, kick the dog.

Score: -39

Daname says...9:59pm Wed 2 Apr 14

beeryjack5on wrote…

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

They've gone again. Must be time for hot chocolate....

[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Daname[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beeryjack5on[/bold] wrote:
Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,[/p][/quote]Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....[/p][/quote]Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......[/p][/quote]They've gone again. Must be time for hot chocolate....Daname

beeryjack5on wrote…

Daname wrote…

beeryjack5on wrote…

Only posting to see how quickly I can get a thousand negatives.. Still, this does seem like a victory for the man in the street,

Ha! It won't be long. The score manipulators are back on duty - they've had their tea and there's obviously nothing good on telly....

Mm.. Getting there already. If this wasn't serious it'd be funny. What a set of clowns, only surpassed by that set of insincere idiots in Westminster......

They've gone again. Must be time for hot chocolate....

Score: -60

Pinza-C55 says...9:59pm Wed 2 Apr 14

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?Pinza-C55

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Score: -50

Silver says...10:05pm Wed 2 Apr 14

York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, aka our leaders haven't been good enough for so many years

York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, aka our leaders haven't been good enough for so many yearsSilver

York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, aka our leaders haven't been good enough for so many years

Score: -5

pedalling paul says...10:12pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?[/p][/quote]Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre.
For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........pedalling paul

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

Score: 52

Pinza-C55 says...10:17pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?[/p][/quote]Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre.
For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........[/p][/quote]I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.Pinza-C55

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

Score: -39

pedalling paul says...10:27pm Wed 2 Apr 14

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government??
I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere?
Regards,
Mutt[/p][/quote]It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation."
To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.pedalling paul

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

Score: 9

JHardacre says...10:28pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

"Sensible" - only in your eyes. Nonsense to the rest of us. Besides which can you kindly explain why taxis are exempt from all the barmy car restrictions?

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?[/p][/quote]Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre.
For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........[/p][/quote]"Sensible" - only in your eyes. Nonsense to the rest of us.
Besides which can you kindly explain why taxis are exempt from all the barmy car restrictions?JHardacre

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

"Sensible" - only in your eyes. Nonsense to the rest of us. Besides which can you kindly explain why taxis are exempt from all the barmy car restrictions?

Score: -294

openallhours says...10:34pm Wed 2 Apr 14

James Alexander... He's only gone and made the shockingly poor Galloway look like Jesus...

James Alexander... He's only gone and made the shockingly poor Galloway look like Jesus...openallhours

James Alexander... He's only gone and made the shockingly poor Galloway look like Jesus...

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible?
Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better.
Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it.
Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.Bad magic

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

Score: -111

Warren Z says...11:00pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Perhaps employ a firm of consulltants,,oh and two or three council workers,director of bridge traffic,assistant director of bridge traffic,assistant to the assistant of bridge traffic etc etc.Should only cost a few million.What the hell.What recession.

Perhaps employ a firm of consulltants,,oh and two or three council workers,director of bridge traffic,assistant director of bridge traffic,assistant to the assistant of bridge traffic etc etc.Should only cost a few million.What the hell.What recession.Warren Z

Perhaps employ a firm of consulltants,,oh and two or three council workers,director of bridge traffic,assistant director of bridge traffic,assistant to the assistant of bridge traffic etc etc.Should only cost a few million.What the hell.What recession.

Score: -154

mack says...11:16pm Wed 2 Apr 14

While James & co had a numerical "mandate" after the last election, they soon forgot that the voters had been desperate to vote out the previous Lib Dem administation. They have paid a terrible price by voting Labour who's anti- car/envy politics were already known from the Rodney Hill days. Next year the voters of York will have a similar dilemma - having either to vote tactically to remove an administration or for a party/candidate they actually support. If Lendalbridgegate fails, I fear that reprisals in the form of congestion charging will be rushed through with indecent and ill thought-out haste.

While James & co had a numerical "mandate" after the last election, they soon forgot that the voters had been desperate to vote out the previous Lib Dem administation. They have paid a terrible price by voting Labour who's anti- car/envy politics were already known from the Rodney Hill days. Next year the voters of York will have a similar dilemma - having either to vote tactically to remove an administration or for a party/candidate they actually support.
If Lendalbridgegate fails, I fear that reprisals in the form of congestion charging will be rushed through with indecent and ill thought-out haste.mack

While James & co had a numerical "mandate" after the last election, they soon forgot that the voters had been desperate to vote out the previous Lib Dem administation. They have paid a terrible price by voting Labour who's anti- car/envy politics were already known from the Rodney Hill days. Next year the voters of York will have a similar dilemma - having either to vote tactically to remove an administration or for a party/candidate they actually support. If Lendalbridgegate fails, I fear that reprisals in the form of congestion charging will be rushed through with indecent and ill thought-out haste.

Score: -126

Igiveinthen says...11:27pm Wed 2 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

B*****ks, you hate cars, end of, the overriding pleasing factor in all this is you will never beat the car for personal transport that is an unequivocal fact pp, 21st century my friend, stop trying to turn the clock back, build roads and you can have the city, I'm a petrol head and look forward to my trips to Europe where I can drive for miles and miles on roads built for motorised transport.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government??
I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere?
Regards,
Mutt[/p][/quote]It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation."
To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.[/p][/quote]B*****ks, you hate cars, end of, the overriding pleasing factor in all this is you will never beat the car for personal transport that is an unequivocal fact pp, 21st century my friend, stop trying to turn the clock back, build roads and you can have the city, I'm a petrol head and look forward to my trips to Europe where I can drive for miles and miles on roads built for motorised transport.Igiveinthen

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

B*****ks, you hate cars, end of, the overriding pleasing factor in all this is you will never beat the car for personal transport that is an unequivocal fact pp, 21st century my friend, stop trying to turn the clock back, build roads and you can have the city, I'm a petrol head and look forward to my trips to Europe where I can drive for miles and miles on roads built for motorised transport.

Score: -114

strangebuttrue? says...11:37pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Why do people keep saying the foot streets were opposed at the time?. They may have been opposed by a minority of folk who in those days had a voice which many did not but to my recollection most ordinary folk supported it and most ordinary folk did not have cars at the time. I could not wait for my first trip into town after they closed them and believed it to be a brilliant idea. I suppose saying it was opposed now lends a helpful but again misleading hand to the minority who feel the Lendal Bridge farce is a good idea which it clearly is not.

Why do people keep saying the foot streets were opposed at the time?. They may have been opposed by a minority of folk who in those days had a voice which many did not but to my recollection most ordinary folk supported it and most ordinary folk did not have cars at the time. I could not wait for my first trip into town after they closed them and believed it to be a brilliant idea. I suppose saying it was opposed now lends a helpful but again misleading hand to the minority who feel the Lendal Bridge farce is a good idea which it clearly is not.strangebuttrue?

Why do people keep saying the foot streets were opposed at the time?. They may have been opposed by a minority of folk who in those days had a voice which many did not but to my recollection most ordinary folk supported it and most ordinary folk did not have cars at the time. I could not wait for my first trip into town after they closed them and believed it to be a brilliant idea. I suppose saying it was opposed now lends a helpful but again misleading hand to the minority who feel the Lendal Bridge farce is a good idea which it clearly is not.

Score: -84

Thunderblade says...11:44pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Poor old Tiny Jim getting it in the neck from everyone. It isn’t really his fault you know. We should all take a look at the circumstances behind his meteoric rise through the ranks and ponder how did he get the job in the first place? Was it his experience or proven track record? No! The more cynical of us might make the suggestion that ferret didn’t want the job anymore as the “leader” doesn’t hold a cabinet position and as chief cabinet member for ridiculously long titles he would have more power than the leader himself. Once he had this power he would be able to inflict his own agenda on the citizens and of course the undemocratic format of the cabinet system would allowed him to do it. The power behind the throne is Dave Merrett, I would say Tiny Jim is just a figure head (or scapegoat?)

Poor old Tiny Jim getting it in the neck from everyone. It isn’t really his fault you know. We should all take a look at the circumstances behind his meteoric rise through the ranks and ponder how did he get the job in the first place? Was it his experience or proven track record? No!
The more cynical of us might make the suggestion that ferret didn’t want the job anymore as the “leader” doesn’t hold a cabinet position and as chief cabinet member for ridiculously long titles he would have more power than the leader himself.
Once he had this power he would be able to inflict his own agenda on the citizens and of course the undemocratic format of the cabinet system would allowed him to do it.
The power behind the throne is Dave Merrett, I would say Tiny Jim is just a figure head (or scapegoat?)Thunderblade

Poor old Tiny Jim getting it in the neck from everyone. It isn’t really his fault you know. We should all take a look at the circumstances behind his meteoric rise through the ranks and ponder how did he get the job in the first place? Was it his experience or proven track record? No! The more cynical of us might make the suggestion that ferret didn’t want the job anymore as the “leader” doesn’t hold a cabinet position and as chief cabinet member for ridiculously long titles he would have more power than the leader himself. Once he had this power he would be able to inflict his own agenda on the citizens and of course the undemocratic format of the cabinet system would allowed him to do it. The power behind the throne is Dave Merrett, I would say Tiny Jim is just a figure head (or scapegoat?)

Score: -110

jay, york says...12:12am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bad magic wrote…

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

Very, very well said - I think we would all be happy with this sort of approach - apart from a certain cycling lobbyist and advisor to the CYC. Such a shame this council thought that the bullying tactics would work - what idiots. But then when you listen to some of them and read their posts on here, you realise they dont know how to act any other way. Thing is with bullies, at the end of the day are cowards and eventaully prove to us all that they do not really have a clue as to what they are doing.

[quote][p][bold]Bad magic[/bold] wrote:
I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.[/p][/quote]Very, very well said - I think we would all be happy with this sort of approach - apart from a certain cycling lobbyist and advisor to the CYC. Such a shame this council thought that the bullying tactics would work - what idiots. But then when you listen to some of them and read their posts on here, you realise they dont know how to act any other way.
Thing is with bullies, at the end of the day are cowards and eventaully prove to us all that they do not really have a clue as to what they are doing.jay, york

Bad magic wrote…

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

Very, very well said - I think we would all be happy with this sort of approach - apart from a certain cycling lobbyist and advisor to the CYC. Such a shame this council thought that the bullying tactics would work - what idiots. But then when you listen to some of them and read their posts on here, you realise they dont know how to act any other way. Thing is with bullies, at the end of the day are cowards and eventaully prove to us all that they do not really have a clue as to what they are doing.

Score: -118

Badgers Drift says...12:55am Thu 3 Apr 14

When millions of £'s are illegally extorted from thousands of people, what is this called, what are those responsible for it called, and what is the punishment they receive ? In most walks of life, the aswers would be, 'theft', 'thieves/criminals' and 'imprisonment' Sadly in this case the answers will no doubt be, 'a mistake', 'councillors/officer s', and 'nothing'! Fairness, transparency and accountability - concepts which do not apply to City of York Council !

When millions of £'s are illegally extorted from thousands of people, what is this called, what are those responsible for it called, and what is the punishment they receive ?
In most walks of life, the aswers would be, 'theft', 'thieves/criminals' and 'imprisonment'
Sadly in this case the answers will no doubt be, 'a mistake', 'councillors/officer
s', and 'nothing'!
Fairness, transparency and accountability - concepts which do not apply to City of York Council !Badgers Drift

When millions of £'s are illegally extorted from thousands of people, what is this called, what are those responsible for it called, and what is the punishment they receive ? In most walks of life, the aswers would be, 'theft', 'thieves/criminals' and 'imprisonment' Sadly in this case the answers will no doubt be, 'a mistake', 'councillors/officer s', and 'nothing'! Fairness, transparency and accountability - concepts which do not apply to City of York Council !

Score: -171

jay, york says...1:08am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

Oh PP ehat are we to do with you - you alledgedly "advise" the council on cycling issues but clearly have no understanding of what a ring road is - be it inner or outer. Its very purpose is to carry traffic and free up other routes. Just get real - cars exist as do cycles. Neither is better than the other - we live in a democracy and people are quite entitled to use their preferred mode of transport - dependant on the actual journery and circumstance. You have a witch hunt going on inside your head and I do acutally feel sorry for you.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt[/p][/quote]It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.[/p][/quote]Oh PP ehat are we to do with you - you alledgedly "advise" the council on cycling issues but clearly have no understanding of what a ring road is - be it inner or outer. Its very purpose is to carry traffic and free up other routes. Just get real - cars exist as do cycles. Neither is better than the other - we live in a democracy and people are quite entitled to use their preferred mode of transport - dependant on the actual journery and circumstance.
You have a witch hunt going on inside your head and I do acutally feel sorry for you.jay, york

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

Oh PP ehat are we to do with you - you alledgedly "advise" the council on cycling issues but clearly have no understanding of what a ring road is - be it inner or outer. Its very purpose is to carry traffic and free up other routes. Just get real - cars exist as do cycles. Neither is better than the other - we live in a democracy and people are quite entitled to use their preferred mode of transport - dependant on the actual journery and circumstance. You have a witch hunt going on inside your head and I do acutally feel sorry for you.

Score: -83

asd says...1:19am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

I actualy spoke to a civil engineer about the ring road 20 years ago and he said back then it was based on a 1970's design I think in Milton keynes. He said that with the roundabouts he said would be oversaturated within 10 years. I think he was spot on. A few idea's here, turn off the blooming lights at hopgrove/a64 junction after 8 pm or non-rush hour similar to Leeds. Phase the lights correctly for more flowing traffic, flowing traffic means less pollution compared to static traffic.Open train station at Haxby and Poppleton using train/ tram technology.Open the Mill lane to Borobridge road after school hours and open fully on school holiday , no suger beet anymore and maybe bring Great yorkshire way road out near the Ainsty. River taxis from Poppleton into city centre, turn inner ring road to one way dual loop. Maybe these are not a good cash cow for the council. Im sure people have better simpler idea's to help solve congestion and also help environment than any blooming stupid councilors could do. Ohh yes maybe make bus fare cheaper too, maybe council takes over running of it like west Yorkshire have done

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government??
I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere?
Regards,
Mutt[/p][/quote]It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation."
To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.[/p][/quote]I actualy spoke to a civil engineer about the ring road 20 years ago and he said back then it was based on a 1970's design I think in Milton keynes. He said that with the roundabouts he said would be oversaturated within 10 years. I think he was spot on. A few idea's here, turn off the blooming lights at hopgrove/a64 junction after 8 pm or non-rush hour similar to Leeds. Phase the lights correctly for more flowing traffic, flowing traffic means less pollution compared to static traffic.Open train station at Haxby and Poppleton using train/ tram technology.Open the Mill lane to Borobridge road after school hours and open fully on school holiday , no suger beet anymore and maybe bring Great yorkshire way road out near the Ainsty. River taxis from Poppleton into city centre, turn inner ring road to one way dual loop. Maybe these are not a good cash cow for the council. Im sure people have better simpler idea's to help solve congestion and also help environment than any blooming stupid councilors could do. Ohh yes maybe make bus fare cheaper too, maybe council takes over running of it like west Yorkshire have doneasd

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

I actualy spoke to a civil engineer about the ring road 20 years ago and he said back then it was based on a 1970's design I think in Milton keynes. He said that with the roundabouts he said would be oversaturated within 10 years. I think he was spot on. A few idea's here, turn off the blooming lights at hopgrove/a64 junction after 8 pm or non-rush hour similar to Leeds. Phase the lights correctly for more flowing traffic, flowing traffic means less pollution compared to static traffic.Open train station at Haxby and Poppleton using train/ tram technology.Open the Mill lane to Borobridge road after school hours and open fully on school holiday , no suger beet anymore and maybe bring Great yorkshire way road out near the Ainsty. River taxis from Poppleton into city centre, turn inner ring road to one way dual loop. Maybe these are not a good cash cow for the council. Im sure people have better simpler idea's to help solve congestion and also help environment than any blooming stupid councilors could do. Ohh yes maybe make bus fare cheaper too, maybe council takes over running of it like west Yorkshire have done

Score: -51

jay, york says...1:41am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bad magic wrote…

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

Ignore all the -ve votes - they have nothing to say, its just a political thing - you are spot on! Thios labour CYC must be kicking themselves to think that if they had gone about everything in a proper and professional way, they may acually have had support from people.

[quote][p][bold]Bad magic[/bold] wrote:
I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.[/p][/quote]Ignore all the -ve votes - they have nothing to say, its just a political thing - you are spot on! Thios labour CYC must be kicking themselves to think that if they had gone about everything in a proper and professional way, they may acually have had support from people.jay, york

Bad magic wrote…

I for one would love to see less traffic in town. How about achieving this by a sensible integrated traffic policy? Reliable, affordable buses. No priority given to taxi drivers. No ridiculous money wasting preferences given to cyclists. Maybe just keep the vital inner ringroad open, and moving as freely as possible? Traffic volume has not increased, as many have pointed out. Therefore, something has been deliberately done to make transport in York as unpleasant as possible. You know we're all looking at you, Merret. Merret is my councillor, but I sincerely hope he isn't after the next election. And the sooner York is shut of James Alexander, the better. Carrots, and not sticks are the order of the day. Make the city centre somewhere people don't need to drive into, not somewhere they have to but cannot. And certainly don't cut the city in half and pollute residential areas doing it. Not that anyone is going to listen to common sense at West Offices.

Ignore all the -ve votes - they have nothing to say, its just a political thing - you are spot on! Thios labour CYC must be kicking themselves to think that if they had gone about everything in a proper and professional way, they may acually have had support from people.

Score: -12

Magicman! says...4:27am Thu 3 Apr 14

It seems from the report that the key point in making the bridge closure a 'grey area' is that there are too many exemptions, including the one for Royal Mail. So the council could opt for a quick fix which hinges just on that point. I would like to see traffic flowing better around the city, and on many different pages on this site have included my suggestions... be it improved junctions through from Skeldergate Bridge and Tower Street, to Piccadilly and Castle Mills, Walmgate bar, Navigation Road; improving the Water End and Water Lane junction; to reducing the number of unituitive traffic lights and pointless traffic lights, replacing them with self-regulating junction options; up to making Fulford Road a 'smart road' with a 3rd lane of which its direction is governed by whether it is the AM or PM peak so that 2 lanes of road are given to the busiest flow... .... but the simple fact is that roads WITHIN the boundary of the Inner Ring Road should be roads where pedestrians, cyclists, and buses (even possibly motorcycles and mopeds) are given higher priority over private cars. Road closures to 'unauthorised vehicles' is one way of doing that - BUT it needs to be accompanied by improvements elsewhere in the road network in order to 'unlock' capacity that is hiding away. And currently that hasn't happened: the council just closed Lendal Bridge, tampered with the odd set of traffic lights, and failed to deliver any meaningful junction improvements on the alternative traffic routes. Think about towns and cities where right in the city centre the private vehicles are allowed unrestricted access - are they places that tourists like to go? Does Birmingham have a thriving tourist sight-seeing economy for example??

It seems from the report that the key point in making the bridge closure a 'grey area' is that there are too many exemptions, including the one for Royal Mail. So the council could opt for a quick fix which hinges just on that point.
I would like to see traffic flowing better around the city, and on many different pages on this site have included my suggestions... be it improved junctions through from Skeldergate Bridge and Tower Street, to Piccadilly and Castle Mills, Walmgate bar, Navigation Road; improving the Water End and Water Lane junction; to reducing the number of unituitive traffic lights and pointless traffic lights, replacing them with self-regulating junction options; up to making Fulford Road a 'smart road' with a 3rd lane of which its direction is governed by whether it is the AM or PM peak so that 2 lanes of road are given to the busiest flow...
.... but the simple fact is that roads WITHIN the boundary of the Inner Ring Road should be roads where pedestrians, cyclists, and buses (even possibly motorcycles and mopeds) are given higher priority over private cars. Road closures to 'unauthorised vehicles' is one way of doing that - BUT it needs to be accompanied by improvements elsewhere in the road network in order to 'unlock' capacity that is hiding away. And currently that hasn't happened: the council just closed Lendal Bridge, tampered with the odd set of traffic lights, and failed to deliver any meaningful junction improvements on the alternative traffic routes.
Think about towns and cities where right in the city centre the private vehicles are allowed unrestricted access - are they places that tourists like to go? Does Birmingham have a thriving tourist sight-seeing economy for example??Magicman!

It seems from the report that the key point in making the bridge closure a 'grey area' is that there are too many exemptions, including the one for Royal Mail. So the council could opt for a quick fix which hinges just on that point. I would like to see traffic flowing better around the city, and on many different pages on this site have included my suggestions... be it improved junctions through from Skeldergate Bridge and Tower Street, to Piccadilly and Castle Mills, Walmgate bar, Navigation Road; improving the Water End and Water Lane junction; to reducing the number of unituitive traffic lights and pointless traffic lights, replacing them with self-regulating junction options; up to making Fulford Road a 'smart road' with a 3rd lane of which its direction is governed by whether it is the AM or PM peak so that 2 lanes of road are given to the busiest flow... .... but the simple fact is that roads WITHIN the boundary of the Inner Ring Road should be roads where pedestrians, cyclists, and buses (even possibly motorcycles and mopeds) are given higher priority over private cars. Road closures to 'unauthorised vehicles' is one way of doing that - BUT it needs to be accompanied by improvements elsewhere in the road network in order to 'unlock' capacity that is hiding away. And currently that hasn't happened: the council just closed Lendal Bridge, tampered with the odd set of traffic lights, and failed to deliver any meaningful junction improvements on the alternative traffic routes. Think about towns and cities where right in the city centre the private vehicles are allowed unrestricted access - are they places that tourists like to go? Does Birmingham have a thriving tourist sight-seeing economy for example??

Score: -21

oi oi savaloy says...7:13am Thu 3 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.

[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?[/p][/quote]Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre.
For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........[/p][/quote]I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.[/p][/quote]i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.oi oi savaloy

Pinza-C55 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.

Score: -5

pedalling paul says...7:15am Thu 3 Apr 14

Abdiel wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

Surely you mean "Hear Hear"

[quote][p][bold]Abdiel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]Here here!,[/p][/quote]Surely you mean "Hear Hear"pedalling paul

Abdiel wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

Surely you mean "Hear Hear"

Score: 48

Cheeky face says...7:30am Thu 3 Apr 14

What York needs is inner and outer ring roads that actually aid traffic flow; and if traffic lights prevent this then better lights timing and on/off switches must be considered. I understand the Blackpool lights engineers are to have a busman's holiday to York to see our lights! This council needs help because they do not appear to understand what they have done, or what needs to be done. Is there a plan from the council leader to rectify recent failings? The council leader and chief executive MUST take the blame; even though they have been let down. I still await my letter of August 2013 being answered properly! Most questions in that letter are covered by the report from the adjudicator. I have spoken to Dept for Transport, adjudicator's office and the DVLA, following the trial commencing; and those conversations were interesting!.

What York needs is inner and outer ring roads that actually aid traffic flow; and if traffic lights prevent this then better lights timing and on/off switches must be considered. I understand the Blackpool lights engineers are to have a busman's holiday to York to see our lights!
This council needs help because they do not appear to understand what they have done, or what needs to be done.
Is there a plan from the council leader to rectify recent failings?
The council leader and chief executive MUST take the blame; even though they have been let down.
I still await my letter of August 2013 being answered properly! Most questions in that letter are covered by the report from the adjudicator.
I have spoken to Dept for Transport, adjudicator's office and the DVLA, following the trial commencing; and those conversations were interesting!.Cheeky face

What York needs is inner and outer ring roads that actually aid traffic flow; and if traffic lights prevent this then better lights timing and on/off switches must be considered. I understand the Blackpool lights engineers are to have a busman's holiday to York to see our lights! This council needs help because they do not appear to understand what they have done, or what needs to be done. Is there a plan from the council leader to rectify recent failings? The council leader and chief executive MUST take the blame; even though they have been let down. I still await my letter of August 2013 being answered properly! Most questions in that letter are covered by the report from the adjudicator. I have spoken to Dept for Transport, adjudicator's office and the DVLA, following the trial commencing; and those conversations were interesting!.

Score: -37

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...7:32am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

Abdiel wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

Surely you mean "Hear Hear"

Or possibly "Hear hear"

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Abdiel[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote:
Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.[/p][/quote]Here here!,[/p][/quote]Surely you mean "Hear Hear"[/p][/quote]Or possibly "Hear hear"NoNewsIsGoodNews

pedalling paul wrote…

Abdiel wrote…

yorkandproud wrote…

Pedalling Paul. You jump on any bandwagon that seeks to stop any vehicle except bicycles. With your constant winging and wittering about cars you do more damage than good to the efforts to reduce vehicles in York centre. For all our sakes please take a balanced view, or give it a rest, for all our sakes. Please.

Here here!,

Surely you mean "Hear Hear"

Or possibly "Hear hear"

Score: -86

the original Homer says...8:20am Thu 3 Apr 14

the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal. Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards. That would give them some figures which could be useful. However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless. They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"

the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal.
Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards.
That would give them some figures which could be useful.
However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless.
They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"the original Homer

the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal. Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards. That would give them some figures which could be useful. However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless. They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"

Score: -19

Archiebold the 1st says...8:31am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

You two are missing the point completely! They have fined people illegally! this was the council yeh? so now the scheme will be looking at a loss of around 1m! add that to 20 is plenty and thats 1.5m.... so if you think that this has been a successful way to spend tax payers money then you are in the minority! We dont want a car drivers paradise! this is a small city so it never will be! just like ever other historical small town! but these muppets in charge don’t need to shut a leg of the inner ring road to ease it! this was done purely to make money! if you cant see that Paul then you are far to "connected" with the current bunch! They need to undertake proper transport planning. I.e study traffic flow and re-set light sequences to be more time specific. its really not rocket science. Traffic builds up due to light settings. its a fact. I know you will bang on about cycling Paul and that more people will do it when there are more lanes and they get priority (like this shower of sh@t scheme) but the simple fact is they won’t. Car use is down on previous years... petrol is at an all time high, as is road tax and insurance. So closing a leg of a inner ring road wont do anything productive to help your vision. No amount of cycle lanes will... The guy who signed off an illegal programme (james) should be held accountable for wasting 1.5m... if this was a company he would be sacked. So because its the government why should this be different? the leader is always accountable. fact. So take your labour brown nosing and shove it. They deserve to be out for what they are doing and have done to this city.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]You two are missing the point completely! They have fined people illegally! this was the council yeh? so now the scheme will be looking at a loss of around 1m! add that to 20 is plenty and thats 1.5m.... so if you think that this has been a successful way to spend tax payers money then you are in the minority!
We dont want a car drivers paradise! this is a small city so it never will be! just like ever other historical small town! but these muppets in charge don’t need to shut a leg of the inner ring road to ease it! this was done purely to make money! if you cant see that Paul then you are far to "connected" with the current bunch! They need to undertake proper transport planning. I.e study traffic flow and re-set light sequences to be more time specific. its really not rocket science. Traffic builds up due to light settings. its a fact. I know you will bang on about cycling Paul and that more people will do it when there are more lanes and they get priority (like this shower of sh@t scheme) but the simple fact is they won’t. Car use is down on previous years... petrol is at an all time high, as is road tax and insurance. So closing a leg of a inner ring road wont do anything productive to help your vision. No amount of cycle lanes will...
The guy who signed off an illegal programme (james) should be held accountable for wasting 1.5m... if this was a company he would be sacked. So because its the government why should this be different? the leader is always accountable. fact.
So take your labour brown nosing and shove it. They deserve to be out for what they are doing and have done to this city.Archiebold the 1st

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

You two are missing the point completely! They have fined people illegally! this was the council yeh? so now the scheme will be looking at a loss of around 1m! add that to 20 is plenty and thats 1.5m.... so if you think that this has been a successful way to spend tax payers money then you are in the minority! We dont want a car drivers paradise! this is a small city so it never will be! just like ever other historical small town! but these muppets in charge don’t need to shut a leg of the inner ring road to ease it! this was done purely to make money! if you cant see that Paul then you are far to "connected" with the current bunch! They need to undertake proper transport planning. I.e study traffic flow and re-set light sequences to be more time specific. its really not rocket science. Traffic builds up due to light settings. its a fact. I know you will bang on about cycling Paul and that more people will do it when there are more lanes and they get priority (like this shower of sh@t scheme) but the simple fact is they won’t. Car use is down on previous years... petrol is at an all time high, as is road tax and insurance. So closing a leg of a inner ring road wont do anything productive to help your vision. No amount of cycle lanes will... The guy who signed off an illegal programme (james) should be held accountable for wasting 1.5m... if this was a company he would be sacked. So because its the government why should this be different? the leader is always accountable. fact. So take your labour brown nosing and shove it. They deserve to be out for what they are doing and have done to this city.

Score: -7

just_back_in _York says...8:35am Thu 3 Apr 14

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency.
Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.just_back_in _York

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

Score: -15

Kevin Turvey says...8:36am Thu 3 Apr 14

‘York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, says council leader’ Should the headline really be any of the following: ‘York Council Leader not good enough to serve the public’ ‘York Council Leadership not fit for purpose’ ‘Idiotic traffic plan gets better of Council Leader’ ‘York Council Leader attempts to absolve himself of any accountability for his own actions’ ‘Council ‘Leader’ announces predicted resignation’ ‘York Council leader shouts – duck’ ‘York council leader shows his true colours’ ‘York council leader demonstrates he is NOT to be trusted’ ‘York council leader demonstrates personal values and honour NOT required for public office’ ‘York council leader hoisted with own petard ‘ James to stop all of this satire and justified ridicule all you have to do is a very simple thing, even you can manage it – resign. I have even made it very easy for you, all you need to do is print off what is written below, sign where it says signature and hand into your boss. To whom it may concern, I James Alexander hereby resign from the position of Leader of York Council with immediate effect. Yours James Alexender Signature

‘York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, says council leader’
Should the headline really be any of the following:
‘York Council Leader not good enough to serve the public’
‘York Council Leadership not fit for purpose’
‘Idiotic traffic plan gets better of Council Leader’
‘York Council Leader attempts to absolve himself of any accountability for his own actions’
‘Council ‘Leader’ announces predicted resignation’
‘York Council leader shouts – duck’
‘York council leader shows his true colours’
‘York council leader demonstrates he is NOT to be trusted’
‘York council leader demonstrates personal values and honour NOT required for public office’
‘York council leader hoisted with own petard ‘
James to stop all of this satire and justified ridicule all you have to do is a very simple thing, even you can manage it – resign.
I have even made it very easy for you, all you need to do is print off what is written below, sign where it says signature and hand into your boss.
To whom it may concern,
I James Alexander hereby resign from the position of Leader of York Council with immediate effect.
Yours
James Alexender
SignatureKevin Turvey

‘York traffic schemes haven't been good enough, says council leader’ Should the headline really be any of the following: ‘York Council Leader not good enough to serve the public’ ‘York Council Leadership not fit for purpose’ ‘Idiotic traffic plan gets better of Council Leader’ ‘York Council Leader attempts to absolve himself of any accountability for his own actions’ ‘Council ‘Leader’ announces predicted resignation’ ‘York Council leader shouts – duck’ ‘York council leader shows his true colours’ ‘York council leader demonstrates he is NOT to be trusted’ ‘York council leader demonstrates personal values and honour NOT required for public office’ ‘York council leader hoisted with own petard ‘ James to stop all of this satire and justified ridicule all you have to do is a very simple thing, even you can manage it – resign. I have even made it very easy for you, all you need to do is print off what is written below, sign where it says signature and hand into your boss. To whom it may concern, I James Alexander hereby resign from the position of Leader of York Council with immediate effect. Yours James Alexender Signature

Score: -10

acomblass says...8:46am Thu 3 Apr 14

James Alexander is keen to run York Council as a business. He should be reminded that in a business people are held accountable for their actions. It was he and his Cabinet (cabale) who signed off the Lendal Bridge trial and if they did not ask the right questions of officers and study the proposals in detail then they are the ones to blame - not Council officials. Officers advise- Members decide but it seems they all want to be councillors and not do the work. However James has shown his true colours in trying to shift the blame. Who on earth would want to be an officer in such a "blame culture" organisation? Certainly York has been made a laughing stock and will not be able to attract officers of an excellent calibre in future. It is about time JA and his cronies "manned up" admitted their mistakes and resigned - after all if it was a banker who had made this mistake they would be the ones calling for heads to roll!.

James Alexander is keen to run York Council as a business. He should be reminded that in a business people are held accountable for their actions. It was he and his Cabinet (cabale) who signed off the Lendal Bridge trial and if they did not ask the right questions of officers and study the proposals in detail then they are the ones to blame - not Council officials. Officers advise- Members decide but it seems they all want to be councillors and not do the work. However James has shown his true colours in trying to shift the blame. Who on earth would want to be an officer in such a "blame culture" organisation? Certainly York has been made a laughing stock and will not be able to attract officers of an excellent calibre in future.
It is about time JA and his cronies "manned up" admitted their mistakes and resigned - after all if it was a banker who had made this mistake they would be the ones calling for heads to roll!.acomblass

James Alexander is keen to run York Council as a business. He should be reminded that in a business people are held accountable for their actions. It was he and his Cabinet (cabale) who signed off the Lendal Bridge trial and if they did not ask the right questions of officers and study the proposals in detail then they are the ones to blame - not Council officials. Officers advise- Members decide but it seems they all want to be councillors and not do the work. However James has shown his true colours in trying to shift the blame. Who on earth would want to be an officer in such a "blame culture" organisation? Certainly York has been made a laughing stock and will not be able to attract officers of an excellent calibre in future. It is about time JA and his cronies "manned up" admitted their mistakes and resigned - after all if it was a banker who had made this mistake they would be the ones calling for heads to roll!.

Score: -22

mutley12321 says...8:48am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

Hello Paul, You’ve answered a different question. 3/10 on your latest distraction attempt, see teacher after class. “It’s now alleged that external guidance obtained….was flawed”. Hmmmm. Buck passing springs to mind. Did the CoYC seek alternative advice or, which would offer a balanced opinion what it seems now, take advice which suited and supported their decision? You suggest a further legal review and/or challenge is carried out. I refer to you my previous posts where I asked at what point, does the CoYC stop throwing our good money after bad? What is the CoYC’s plan for this? If this legal review finds supports the view of Mr Knapp, will a further attempt by CoYC to appeal what has clearly been a badly planned and thought out scheme?? What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mutley12321[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election.
But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat.
The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress.
The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends.
Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government??
I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere?
Regards,
Mutt[/p][/quote]It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation."
To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.[/p][/quote]Hello Paul,
You’ve answered a different question. 3/10 on your latest distraction attempt, see teacher after class.
“It’s now alleged that external guidance obtained….was flawed”. Hmmmm. Buck passing springs to mind. Did the CoYC seek alternative advice or, which would offer a balanced opinion what it seems now, take advice which suited and supported their decision?
You suggest a further legal review and/or challenge is carried out. I refer to you my previous posts where I asked at what point, does the CoYC stop throwing our good money after bad? What is the CoYC’s plan for this? If this legal review finds supports the view of Mr Knapp, will a further attempt by CoYC to appeal what has clearly been a badly planned and thought out scheme??
What has been your personal/professiona
l involvement in this?
Regards
Muttmutley12321

pedalling paul wrote…

mutley12321 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Hello Paul, Can I ask, what involvement, if any you had with this trial as you're coming across increasingly defensive?? You have come across consistently unwavering in your support of the closure, but now appear to prefer diverting queries to central government?? I understand your argument for reducing pollution, we all agree on that. However moving traffic elsewhere - Clifton Green, Foss Islands Rd, Leeman Rd, is only moving pollution elsewhere? Regards, Mutt

It's now alleged that the external guidance obtained by CoYC from such bodies as the DVLA was flawed. It may have been offered and accepted in good faith, but we must perhaps reserve further comment until eg a legal review or challenge is carried out. Lets await that, as well as the independent report that will be coming from the Institute of Transport Studies. As has previously been mentioned, this must become public domain at the same time as CoYC receives it, to stave off any accusations of "sanitisation." To ouseswimer, a brief history lesson on the A1237. It was built by NYCC when they were the highway authority for all North Yorkshire including York. The road was subsequently taken over by the Highways Agency. After our City became a Unitary Authority, it was detrunked and handed to the then recently created CoYC. York spends some of its Council Tax income on upkeep & maintenance, but cannot afford the megabucks costs of any major changes. Such changes as have been carried out are addressing the real pinch points ie the roundabouts, with funding from various Whitehall pots. There is considerable doubt that full dualling at £140 million + would generate a sufficient cost/benefit ratio return. This is because a dualled road would generate induced traffic, and quickly bring congestion back to the levels encountered on the existing road.

Hello Paul, You’ve answered a different question. 3/10 on your latest distraction attempt, see teacher after class. “It’s now alleged that external guidance obtained….was flawed”. Hmmmm. Buck passing springs to mind. Did the CoYC seek alternative advice or, which would offer a balanced opinion what it seems now, take advice which suited and supported their decision? You suggest a further legal review and/or challenge is carried out. I refer to you my previous posts where I asked at what point, does the CoYC stop throwing our good money after bad? What is the CoYC’s plan for this? If this legal review finds supports the view of Mr Knapp, will a further attempt by CoYC to appeal what has clearly been a badly planned and thought out scheme?? What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt

Score: -22

Eric Olthwaite says...9:12am Thu 3 Apr 14

‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.

‘mutley12321 says...
What has been your personal/professiona
l involvement in this?
Regards
Mutt’
I can give you the relevant details that he will not!
He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living!
I know because I used to work in the same company as him.
He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport.
He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance!
He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future.
To sum up a Gobsh!te.Eric Olthwaite

‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.

Score: -10

TheTruthHurts says...9:19am Thu 3 Apr 14

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?TheTruthHurts

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

Score: -12

Kevin Turvey says...9:22am Thu 3 Apr 14

‘Eric Olthwaite says... ‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.’ From my dealing with him over the years I would agree with that!

‘Eric Olthwaite says...
‘mutley12321 says...
What has been your personal/professiona
l involvement in this?
Regards
Mutt’
I can give you the relevant details that he will not!
He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living!
I know because I used to work in the same company as him.
He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport.
He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance!
He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future.
To sum up a Gobsh!te.’
From my dealing with him over the years I would agree with that!Kevin Turvey

‘Eric Olthwaite says... ‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.’ From my dealing with him over the years I would agree with that!

‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.

He also wears strange attire when out on his bike, this is a quote from his twitter account............. My hi-vis vest has a large rear word POLITE followed by "message. Think Bike" Amazing how many drivers misread it and slow down................ ..... I'm not even going to comment!!

[quote][p][bold]Eric Olthwaite[/bold] wrote:
‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.[/p][/quote]He also wears strange attire when out on his bike, this is a quote from his twitter account............. My hi-vis vest has a large rear word POLITE followed by "message. Think Bike" Amazing how many drivers misread it and slow down................
..... I'm not even going to comment!!Igiveinthen

Eric Olthwaite wrote…

‘mutley12321 says... What has been your personal/professiona l involvement in this? Regards Mutt’ I can give you the relevant details that he will not! He is a retired railway Signalling Engineer, he only had a long career as there is a desperate shortage of good ones so bad ones will always be able to make a living! I know because I used to work in the same company as him. He has no formal or demonstrable competence in road traffic management or sustainable road transport. He is merely a cycle fundamentalist with too much time on his hands which leads him to spout copy n pasted dogma without any context or real life relevance/balance! He also has been writing letters to the press for many years about cycling and how they are badly treated long before the press went online. Perhaps someone someday will trawl the archives for a book or a disitation detailing the delusional nature of his obsession in the future. To sum up a Gobsh!te.

He also wears strange attire when out on his bike, this is a quote from his twitter account............. My hi-vis vest has a large rear word POLITE followed by "message. Think Bike" Amazing how many drivers misread it and slow down................ ..... I'm not even going to comment!!

Score: -24

SteveSCA says...10:39am Thu 3 Apr 14

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote:
Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?[/p][/quote]People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run.
The webcast is at:
http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200621/trans
parency/827/council_
webcasts/2
Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off.
In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting.
Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption).
Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously.
An absolute mockery of democracy.SteveSCA

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

Score: -17

sonorbloke says...10:42am Thu 3 Apr 14

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Paul, it's not just one minor technicality about ANPR though is it? Stop minimising it. The reason it's a political issue is that it was pushed through by one party in the face of opposition from the others (which party it is doean't actually matter all that much), but then put in place so incompetently by said party that the adjudicator has just driven a coach and horses through it. Of course that makes it an issue of political interest.

[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.[/p][/quote]Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.[/p][/quote]Paul, it's not just one minor technicality about ANPR though is it? Stop minimising it. The reason it's a political issue is that it was pushed through by one party in the face of opposition from the others (which party it is doean't actually matter all that much), but then put in place so incompetently by said party that the adjudicator has just driven a coach and horses through it.
Of course that makes it an issue of political interest.sonorbloke

pedalling paul wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

Isn't the debate being hijacked by political people though? It looks like there's a campaign to get some sort of resignation out of this or inflict maximum damage on the council to try and win votes at the next election. But all the main parties are the same? Look at Labour's wrecking of the Clifton Green project installed by the last Lib Dem council. Remember the Lid Dem transport person being pilloried for allegedly changing traffic light timings...of no interest at all to us out here in the real world but it ran and ran as a political spat. The difference in continental Europe is probably more honesty from all politicians and a desire to do what's right for their cities rather than score points on the opposition. Also a realisation that some of the right things on traffic and transport are not popular initially (in fact look back at the Press and you'll realise that almost no change is popular initially).... no consensus = no progress. The usual suspects moaning about any infringement on their freedom to drive where they like when they like don't realise that they are being hijacked for political ends. Here's a challenge...stop the games in the Press and all parties please work together to save our city from choking in traffic. Let's have some real politics - working together for the good of our city rather than playing Punch and Judy in our local paper for all the world to see.

Fully concur....we can't afford for transport planning to be used as a political Aunt Sally. It doesn't matter who you elect next year. The car owners paradise that so many aspire to, will never happen. So let's aim all our ammo at Whitehall and urge clarification and changes to the regulations so that ANPR's full potential as a traffic management tool, can be maximised. Otherwise York will eventually choke.

Paul, it's not just one minor technicality about ANPR though is it? Stop minimising it. The reason it's a political issue is that it was pushed through by one party in the face of opposition from the others (which party it is doean't actually matter all that much), but then put in place so incompetently by said party that the adjudicator has just driven a coach and horses through it. Of course that makes it an issue of political interest.

Score: -19

Exlabourmember says...10:52am Thu 3 Apr 14

cynic3 wrote…

I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried? Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - ....... Anyhow, we are all paying the price.

"a new graduate full of theory but no experience" unfortunately this is a direct reference to the council leader not a staff member, hence the calamatious mess - take a look at how many other York University graduates with no experience of anything but student politics prop up this failing administration

[quote][p][bold]cynic3[/bold] wrote:
I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried?
Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - .......
Anyhow, we are all paying the price.[/p][/quote]"a new graduate full of theory but no experience"
unfortunately this is a direct reference to the council leader not a staff member, hence the calamatious mess - take a look at how many other York University graduates with no experience of anything but student politics prop up this failing administrationExlabourmember

cynic3 wrote…

I have a theory that a new graduate full of theory but no experience was taken on in the transport department. This individual was let loose on: Clifton; Fulford Road; Fishergate; and Lendal Bridge. I think there were some proposals for Blossom Street as well - is this just a figment of my imagination or were these buried? Clifton - reversed. Fulford Road - significantly revised. Fishergate - how many signs and how much paint can you cram into a short space? Lendal Bridge - ....... Anyhow, we are all paying the price.

"a new graduate full of theory but no experience" unfortunately this is a direct reference to the council leader not a staff member, hence the calamatious mess - take a look at how many other York University graduates with no experience of anything but student politics prop up this failing administration

Score: -29

TheTruthHurts says...11:02am Thu 3 Apr 14

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?

[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote:
Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?[/p][/quote]People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run.
The webcast is at:
http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200621/trans
parency/827/council_
webcasts/2
Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off.
In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting.
Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption).
Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously.
An absolute mockery of democracy.[/p][/quote]What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?TheTruthHurts

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?

Score: -7

the original Homer says...11:31am Thu 3 Apr 14

Well, the Council continue to throw good money after bad, and most of can already see where it will end up: 1 The fines will be refunded, some after lengthy and costly procedures. 2 The costs of the trial will be well above budget, due to seeking further advice; writing to cancel tickets, compensation claims, court costs etc.. 3 Any apparent income from PCNs will have to be ring-fenced pending claims. 4 The trial will produce no meaningful statistics, because the adjudicator has said the signage was inadequate for 25 of the 26 weeks. 5 The Council will find someone independent who can write a report saying it was a huge success, well administrated, and should be made permanent.

Well, the Council continue to throw good money after bad, and most of can already see where it will end up:
1 The fines will be refunded, some after lengthy and costly procedures.
2 The costs of the trial will be well above budget, due to seeking further advice; writing to cancel tickets, compensation claims, court costs etc..
3 Any apparent income from PCNs will have to be ring-fenced pending claims.
4 The trial will produce no meaningful statistics, because the adjudicator has said the signage was inadequate for 25 of the 26 weeks.
5 The Council will find someone independent who can write a report saying it was a huge success, well administrated, and should be made permanent.the original Homer

Well, the Council continue to throw good money after bad, and most of can already see where it will end up: 1 The fines will be refunded, some after lengthy and costly procedures. 2 The costs of the trial will be well above budget, due to seeking further advice; writing to cancel tickets, compensation claims, court costs etc.. 3 Any apparent income from PCNs will have to be ring-fenced pending claims. 4 The trial will produce no meaningful statistics, because the adjudicator has said the signage was inadequate for 25 of the 26 weeks. 5 The Council will find someone independent who can write a report saying it was a huge success, well administrated, and should be made permanent.

Score: -9

outofajob says...11:45am Thu 3 Apr 14

Council officers do what the politicians want and if you have arrogant politicians who won't take advice you end up with this farce!! if any CYC officers lose their jobs over this it will be a travesty

Council officers do what the politicians want and if you have arrogant politicians who won't take advice you end up with this farce!! if any CYC officers lose their jobs over this it will be a travestyoutofajob

Council officers do what the politicians want and if you have arrogant politicians who won't take advice you end up with this farce!! if any CYC officers lose their jobs over this it will be a travesty

Score: -20

cynic3 says...12:48pm Thu 3 Apr 14

"What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?" ____________________ ____ Freedom of Information request if you want to hear it.

"What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?"
____________________
____
Freedom of Information request if you want to hear it.cynic3

"What was said on the webcast where it has been muted to save TSL's blushes?" ____________________ ____ Freedom of Information request if you want to hear it.

Score: -6

Pinza-C55 says...1:27pm Thu 3 Apr 14

JasBro wrote…

Today's developments are a bit irrelevant. Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations. But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc. We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade. But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.

"Today's developments are a bit irrelevant." No , they are highly relevant. "But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc." How do you propose to have a "discussion" with a council which seems reluctant to divulge figures, engage in any public debate, and even when faced with a report saying it has acted illegally it refuses to end the trial or apologise? " We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies." Who are "we"? The public, who have no influence over the council policy beyond electing them every 5 years? And since the council are unable to handle a policy implemented 8 months ago, do you really trust them to plan anything in the long term? "Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution." These are phrases I hear being bandied about a lot. If we have the "same amount of traffic" how do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it? And do you know what the figures for the pollution are or where I can read them? "it's destroyed the Labour party " No it hasn't. It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, have

[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote:
Today's developments are a bit irrelevant.
Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations.
But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc.
We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade.
But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.[/p][/quote]"Today's developments are a bit irrelevant."
No , they are highly relevant.
"But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc."
How do you propose to have a "discussion" with a council which seems reluctant to divulge figures, engage in any public debate, and even when faced with a report saying it has acted illegally it refuses to end the trial or apologise?
" We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies."
Who are "we"? The public, who have no influence over the council policy beyond electing them every 5 years?
And since the council are unable to handle a policy implemented 8 months ago, do you really trust them to plan anything in the long term?
"Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution."
These are phrases I hear being bandied about a lot. If we have the "same amount of traffic" how do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it? And do you know what the figures for the pollution are or where I can read them?
"it's destroyed the Labour party "
No it hasn't. It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, havePinza-C55

JasBro wrote…

Today's developments are a bit irrelevant. Yes, they show that the council is totally incompetent, but we already knew that. Yes, the cameras are illegal and all the fines should be refunded, that's obvious. Yes, there should be resignations. But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc. We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies. So far, the policies of the last decade have failed miserably. Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution. Lendal Bridge is just another example of the ongoing failure. It's been a shambles, a total farce, it's destroyed the Labour party and it's set back progressive transport policy back by perhaps a decade. But turning the whole debate into motorist v cyclist, or tory v labour will not help at all. We need to find a balance.

"Today's developments are a bit irrelevant." No , they are highly relevant. "But, the real discussion that we should be having city wide is about whether the closure of Lendal Bridge has made any difference to congestion, pollution, environment, trade, business etc." How do you propose to have a "discussion" with a council which seems reluctant to divulge figures, engage in any public debate, and even when faced with a report saying it has acted illegally it refuses to end the trial or apologise? " We also need to take it further and think about long term traffic planning policies." Who are "we"? The public, who have no influence over the council policy beyond electing them every 5 years? And since the council are unable to handle a policy implemented 8 months ago, do you really trust them to plan anything in the long term? "Same amount of traffic, more congestion, more pollution." These are phrases I hear being bandied about a lot. If we have the "same amount of traffic" how do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it? And do you know what the figures for the pollution are or where I can read them? "it's destroyed the Labour party " No it hasn't. It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, have

Score: -52

JasBro says...3:02pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Pinza-C55, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say, perhaps I said it wrong. I specifically said we "should" be having the discussion, I didn't say we "would" be having it. I totally agree that the council won't engage in public debate, it's sad. "Who are we? The public?" Well yes, everybody. But again, although I think it's necessary, I don't expect it. There are figures for the number of cars on the road on the DfT traffic counts website, which show that traffic in York has not really increased in the last decade. The information about pollution comes from the council's own Low Emission Strategy document if I remember correctly. Sorry, I don't keep links and bookmarks to everything I've read, there's been an awful lot to trawl through to get to some of the information. "How do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it?" Well that's the question I'd like answered too. If we have the same amount of traffic, and if we consider that cars have probably got more efficient in the last decade, then what's gone wrong? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that the transport policies are not working. "It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, have" Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. I don't think I'll vote for them again while the current bunch are in charge. "No , they are highly relevant." My concern is that everybody will get so wrapped up in the legality of the cameras, or the unsatisfactory signs, that the wider issues will get forgotten. The cameras and the signs are problems that can be fixed. Fines can and should be repaid, rising bollards can be put in place, and the signs could easily be made clearer. But would that then make closing the Ring Road a good idea? I don't think so.

Pinza-C55, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say, perhaps I said it wrong.
I specifically said we "should" be having the discussion, I didn't say we "would" be having it. I totally agree that the council won't engage in public debate, it's sad.
"Who are we? The public?"
Well yes, everybody. But again, although I think it's necessary, I don't expect it.
There are figures for the number of cars on the road on the DfT traffic counts website, which show that traffic in York has not really increased in the last decade.
The information about pollution comes from the council's own Low Emission Strategy document if I remember correctly. Sorry, I don't keep links and bookmarks to everything I've read, there's been an awful lot to trawl through to get to some of the information.
"How do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it?"
Well that's the question I'd like answered too. If we have the same amount of traffic, and if we consider that cars have probably got more efficient in the last decade, then what's gone wrong? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that the transport policies are not working.
"It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, have"
Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. I don't think I'll vote for them again while the current bunch are in charge.
"No , they are highly relevant."
My concern is that everybody will get so wrapped up in the legality of the cameras, or the unsatisfactory signs, that the wider issues will get forgotten. The cameras and the signs are problems that can be fixed. Fines can and should be repaid, rising bollards can be put in place, and the signs could easily be made clearer. But would that then make closing the Ring Road a good idea? I don't think so.JasBro

Pinza-C55, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say, perhaps I said it wrong. I specifically said we "should" be having the discussion, I didn't say we "would" be having it. I totally agree that the council won't engage in public debate, it's sad. "Who are we? The public?" Well yes, everybody. But again, although I think it's necessary, I don't expect it. There are figures for the number of cars on the road on the DfT traffic counts website, which show that traffic in York has not really increased in the last decade. The information about pollution comes from the council's own Low Emission Strategy document if I remember correctly. Sorry, I don't keep links and bookmarks to everything I've read, there's been an awful lot to trawl through to get to some of the information. "How do we get "more congestion" and "more pollution" from it?" Well that's the question I'd like answered too. If we have the same amount of traffic, and if we consider that cars have probably got more efficient in the last decade, then what's gone wrong? I think we have to at least consider the possibility that the transport policies are not working. "It has destroyed whatever credibility the current council, and especially it's leaders, have" Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. I don't think I'll vote for them again while the current bunch are in charge. "No , they are highly relevant." My concern is that everybody will get so wrapped up in the legality of the cameras, or the unsatisfactory signs, that the wider issues will get forgotten. The cameras and the signs are problems that can be fixed. Fines can and should be repaid, rising bollards can be put in place, and the signs could easily be made clearer. But would that then make closing the Ring Road a good idea? I don't think so.

Score: -64

Exlabourmember says...3:38pm Thu 3 Apr 14

PS i would imagine from nowon anyone appealing their fine can directly quote the council leader as evidence in their defence

PS i would imagine from nowon anyone appealing their fine can directly quote the council leader as evidence in their defenceExlabourmember

PS i would imagine from nowon anyone appealing their fine can directly quote the council leader as evidence in their defence

Score: -83

Badgers Drift says...6:43pm Thu 3 Apr 14

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?[/p][/quote]People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.[/p][/quote]I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording.
Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully!
The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition.
York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !Badgers Drift

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

Score: -47

courier46 says...8:46pm Thu 3 Apr 14

I knew they are idiots,but this is turning a little bit sinister and very worrying

I knew they are idiots,but this is turning a little bit sinister and very worryingcourier46

I knew they are idiots,but this is turning a little bit sinister and very worrying

Score: -32

Magicman! says...1:45am Fri 4 Apr 14

oi oi savaloy wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.

... and very few cars too. There's the co-relation... vastly more bikes, vastly less cars, hardly any traffic accidents where cars hit cyclists.

[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]buzzy_bee[/bold] wrote:
After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable.
On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.[/p][/quote]All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure.
They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them.
The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.[/p][/quote]"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through "
You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with".
Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this?
I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?[/p][/quote]Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre.
For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........[/p][/quote]I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.[/p][/quote]i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.[/p][/quote]... and very few cars too. There's the co-relation... vastly more bikes, vastly less cars, hardly any traffic accidents where cars hit cyclists.Magicman!

oi oi savaloy wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

pedalling paul wrote…

Pinza-C55 wrote…

yorkshirelad wrote…

buzzy_bee wrote…

After my own external review, i conclude that this fiasco is down to incompetence. I also conclude that because of this incompetence, the York taxpayer will have to foot the bill (in the hundreds of thousands) and for this reason, any person in the local administration who had a part in this should do the honourable thing and resign i.e. James Alexander and David Merrett as their positions are now untenable. On another note, all the comments I have read have blasted the current administration yet all the scores are in the negatives yet I haven't read any comments in support of the current administration. York press should abolish the scores as clearly they are been manipulative to give a false impression that York residents are happy with this fiasco.

All comments blasting the administration? Well you are not reading then. I support what both this administration AND the last administration did to try and modernise York's transport infrastructure. They've got a technicality wrong, clearly after being given wrong advice somewhere, but on the fundamental issue of gradually reducing our dependance on the private car in the city-centre they are absolutely right, as were the Lib Dems before them. The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through to become, at the time, a national example of good practice. We are falling behind on good transport practice now because of Punch and Judy political rows undermining every change. Like PM Questions in the House of Commons, those of us living in the real world are sick of the show and it's high time our representatives behaved better.

"The Footstreets are the classic example we must learn from....bitterly opposed at the time but visionary and brave leaders pushed it through " You seem to interpret "visionary and brave" as "something I agree with". Can you explain how you KNOW (not simply assert) what the effect would have been on the city centre if it had not been partially pedestrianized and almost as importantly HOW you know this? I am merely a pedestrian, not a cyclist , motorist or bus user. I would regard the council as "visionary and brave" if they banned bicycles from the city centre - would you agree with me?

Sensible Transport Planning for urban areas includes giving artificial priority to cyclists, bus, taxi users and possible multi-occupancy cars, so that they can penetrate much closer to their final destination. Hence a competitive time saving edge over the car for short journeys. So no to banning cycles and public transport, and yes to then using selected "corridors "within the centre. For cyclists that would avoid the need for them to use busy peripheral roads,as per current DfT guidance. LTN 2/08 "Infrastructure for Cyclists" Section 4.4 Vehicle Restricted Areas...........

I didn't ask for a reply from you Paul, I wrote you off as a fool long ago.

i have probably been cycling to and from work and in my leisure time more than piddling Paul in my lifetime around York, i too think he is a complete fool and think he gives a bad name to cyclists in York! cyclists flowed around York in the 70'S in their thousands with absolutely no need for cycle lanes (definitely not clifton green) and bridge closures to cars, there was very few accidents.

... and very few cars too. There's the co-relation... vastly more bikes, vastly less cars, hardly any traffic accidents where cars hit cyclists.

Score: -1

Magicman! says...1:51am Fri 4 Apr 14

the original Homer wrote…

the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal. Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards. That would give them some figures which could be useful. However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless. They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"

Hmmm... if they stopped handing out fines, and told people that - BUT still said the road was 'closed' and that any vehicle using Coppergate or Lendal Bridge during the hours of closure was still doing it illegally - and at the same time kept the cameras rolling just for statistical evidence... the result would be a very good "before and after" to show just how much difference enforcement makes to a road closure - because if everybody knew that fines weren't being issued, pretty much all the traffic would return to these roads again, and it would show up that the only reason people were avoiding the roads was because the drivers knew they'd get a fine through the front door. Think about Coppergate.... Coppergate has been closed to private vehicles for somewhere in the region of 20 YEARS during the main trading hours of the day... Why don't we cast our minds back to all the articles in The Press when the police would carry out "a sting operation" and issue fines to people using Coppergate illegally, and just the vast amount of people who got fined within a period of 6 hours. Between 3pm and 5pm, you could look or go along Coppergate and look at all the vehicles in a queue waiting to turn into Nessgate, and off that queue buses would only be making up 40% - the other 55% being private vehicles using the road illegally... and the reason those vehicles were there is because the drivers knew there would be no consequences, and no fines. The ANPR cameras get switched on, the fines start rolling in, and as if by magic the amount of illegal traffic along Coppergate is vastly reduced. Regardless of what a person may think of the closure of Coppergate, the statistical evidence there is that enforcement reduced the lawbreaking.

[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote:
the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal.
Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards.
That would give them some figures which could be useful.
However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless.
They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"[/p][/quote]Hmmm... if they stopped handing out fines, and told people that - BUT still said the road was 'closed' and that any vehicle using Coppergate or Lendal Bridge during the hours of closure was still doing it illegally - and at the same time kept the cameras rolling just for statistical evidence... the result would be a very good "before and after" to show just how much difference enforcement makes to a road closure - because if everybody knew that fines weren't being issued, pretty much all the traffic would return to these roads again, and it would show up that the only reason people were avoiding the roads was because the drivers knew they'd get a fine through the front door.
Think about Coppergate.... Coppergate has been closed to private vehicles for somewhere in the region of 20 YEARS during the main trading hours of the day... Why don't we cast our minds back to all the articles in The Press when the police would carry out "a sting operation" and issue fines to people using Coppergate illegally, and just the vast amount of people who got fined within a period of 6 hours. Between 3pm and 5pm, you could look or go along Coppergate and look at all the vehicles in a queue waiting to turn into Nessgate, and off that queue buses would only be making up 40% - the other 55% being private vehicles using the road illegally... and the reason those vehicles were there is because the drivers knew there would be no consequences, and no fines. The ANPR cameras get switched on, the fines start rolling in, and as if by magic the amount of illegal traffic along Coppergate is vastly reduced. Regardless of what a person may think of the closure of Coppergate, the statistical evidence there is that enforcement reduced the lawbreaking.Magicman!

the original Homer wrote…

the adjudicator's report means the issuing of "fines" should be stopped immediately. The Council will be open to all sorts of costs if they continue issuing tickets after an independent review has told them it's illlegal. Whether the cameras should be actually turned off depends upon whether or not the trial ever was intended to live up to its name. The cameras have captured counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge during the "closure". The Council could now announce suspension of fines and then use the cameras to capture counts of vehicles of the various categories using the bridge afterwards. That would give them some figures which could be useful. However, if the "trial" was just a name, and the Council weren't interested in the results, then they could just carry on regardless. They may not realise it, but their actions over the next few days will show the sincerity of the "trial"

Hmmm... if they stopped handing out fines, and told people that - BUT still said the road was 'closed' and that any vehicle using Coppergate or Lendal Bridge during the hours of closure was still doing it illegally - and at the same time kept the cameras rolling just for statistical evidence... the result would be a very good "before and after" to show just how much difference enforcement makes to a road closure - because if everybody knew that fines weren't being issued, pretty much all the traffic would return to these roads again, and it would show up that the only reason people were avoiding the roads was because the drivers knew they'd get a fine through the front door. Think about Coppergate.... Coppergate has been closed to private vehicles for somewhere in the region of 20 YEARS during the main trading hours of the day... Why don't we cast our minds back to all the articles in The Press when the police would carry out "a sting operation" and issue fines to people using Coppergate illegally, and just the vast amount of people who got fined within a period of 6 hours. Between 3pm and 5pm, you could look or go along Coppergate and look at all the vehicles in a queue waiting to turn into Nessgate, and off that queue buses would only be making up 40% - the other 55% being private vehicles using the road illegally... and the reason those vehicles were there is because the drivers knew there would be no consequences, and no fines. The ANPR cameras get switched on, the fines start rolling in, and as if by magic the amount of illegal traffic along Coppergate is vastly reduced. Regardless of what a person may think of the closure of Coppergate, the statistical evidence there is that enforcement reduced the lawbreaking.

Score: -1

Magicman! says...2:00am Fri 4 Apr 14

just_back_in _York wrote…

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here). If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.

[quote][p][bold]just_back_in _York[/bold] wrote:
A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency.
Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.[/p][/quote]You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here).
If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.Magicman!

just_back_in _York wrote…

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here). If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.

Score: -3

anistasia says...3:00am Fri 4 Apr 14

James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.

James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.anistasia

James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.

Score: -2

JasBro says...9:29am Fri 4 Apr 14

Magicman! wrote…

just_back_in _York wrote…

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here). If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.

According to the Department for Transport, traffic in York isn't much different to the levels a decade ago Cars 2003 - 385,298 2012 - 377,459 All Motor Vehicles 2003 - 465,719 2012 - 465,488

[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]just_back_in _York[/bold] wrote:
A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency.
Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.[/p][/quote]You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here).
If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.[/p][/quote]According to the Department for Transport, traffic in York isn't much different to the levels a decade ago
Cars
2003 - 385,298
2012 - 377,459
All Motor Vehicles
2003 - 465,719
2012 - 465,488JasBro

Magicman! wrote…

just_back_in _York wrote…

A total rethink is needed here. York has very few road resources and unlikely to build more, it makes no sense therefore to deny usage of scarce resources to 80% of people! whether this is dedicated bus lanes or closed bridges. Time for a lot of people to face the fact that the car is the primary mode of transport for the majority for a reason: flexibility, cost and efficiency. Allocation of road resources should maximise the usage for everyone and not a few favoured groups with political bias. Public transport thinking is stuck in a 19th century view. This is good for the providers as it allows them to cherry-pick the high revenue routes while ignoring the 99% of the area. It also allows politicians to meddle. Time to look at technology and revise the whole concept of transport provision such that public transport and private usage complement each other as opposed to the current system of competing.

You cannot drive wherever you want, whenever you want, and expect to get there quickly, not in York. Whether you drive regularly or not you cannot fail to notice that whichever roads you regularly use, within the last 10-15 years the amount of private vehicle traffic in York has skyrocketed. Whilst it doesn't help that during the same period of time our primary bus operator, Firstgroup, was being directed by Moir Lockhead who was a modern day Mr Scrooge and under his directions York's bus network was cut back as much as he could (of which the new company management is trying to reverse the 15 years of under-investment), the fact is a lot of the private vehicle traffic in York is made up of people who could use another mode of transport if they tried.... or at the very least use other roads that don't come near the historic heart of the city. Such traffic needs to be shifted back out of York to outermost roads with much better capacity - but to do so requires significant investment to improve the capacity of such roads (the A1237 being the key example here). If you want a city where you can drive right into the city centre and around it without a lot of congestion then move to Birmingham or Milton Keynes.

According to the Department for Transport, traffic in York isn't much different to the levels a decade ago Cars 2003 - 385,298 2012 - 377,459 All Motor Vehicles 2003 - 465,719 2012 - 465,488

Score: 5

courier46 says...9:36am Fri 4 Apr 14

anistasia wrote…

James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.

For christ sake,we dont want bollards and people would still mind our bridge been closed to cars.Just open the thing,why is it joe public can see this but the muppets in charge do not!

[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote:
James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.[/p][/quote]For christ sake,we dont want bollards and people would still mind our bridge been closed to cars.Just open the thing,why is it joe public can see this but the muppets in charge do not!courier46

anistasia wrote…

James Alexander says plenty of other cities around the world have traffic reduction schemes in place .places like Chester a walled city like York but they have bollards and rising bollards making it impossible to drive into the centre of Chester.so no money can be got because you have a physical blockage in the road.hence no fines can be collected.but York council will not put in place bollards because if they do and cars can't cross they'll get no money in hence it's said to be a money making scheme by York council.if bollards were used in the first place drivers would not of minded going a different way but because of various reasons people got caught out and fines imposed.but in bollards in place drivers have no excuse then.

For christ sake,we dont want bollards and people would still mind our bridge been closed to cars.Just open the thing,why is it joe public can see this but the muppets in charge do not!

Score: 3

Pinza-C55 says...11:15am Fri 4 Apr 14

Bollards would be more or less impossible due to the nature of the road junctions at the station end of the bridge and the both ends of Coppergate. If just one car got stuck it would be chaos.

Bollards would be more or less impossible due to the nature of the road junctions at the station end of the bridge and the both ends of Coppergate. If just one car got stuck it would be chaos.Pinza-C55

Bollards would be more or less impossible due to the nature of the road junctions at the station end of the bridge and the both ends of Coppergate. If just one car got stuck it would be chaos.

Score: 0

aac2689 says...4:06pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Bollards ? Please dont give York City Clowncil anymore ideas,it is afterall a main route to the hospital,im sure ambulance drivers would love having to wait for them

Bollards ?
Please dont give York City Clowncil anymore ideas,it is afterall a main route to the hospital,im sure ambulance drivers would love having to wait for themaac2689

Bollards ? Please dont give York City Clowncil anymore ideas,it is afterall a main route to the hospital,im sure ambulance drivers would love having to wait for them

Score: 2

gmsgop says...11:03pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift wrote…

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

stevesca/BD Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse). It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour. The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair). Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey. Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates!

[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?[/p][/quote]People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.[/p][/quote]I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording.
Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully!
The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition.
York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can ![/p][/quote]stevesca/BD
Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse).
It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour.
The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair).
Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey.
Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates!gmsgop

Badgers Drift wrote…

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

stevesca/BD Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse). It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour. The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair). Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey. Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates!

Score: 4

SteveSCA says...11:54pm Sat 5 Apr 14

gmsgop wrote…

Badgers Drift wrote…

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

stevesca/BD Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse). It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour. The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair). Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey. Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates!

Go for it, Gwen!!

[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSCA[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?[/p][/quote]People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.[/p][/quote]I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording.
Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully!
The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition.
York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can ![/p][/quote]stevesca/BD
Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse).
It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour.
The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair).
Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey.
Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates![/p][/quote]Go for it, Gwen!!SteveSCA

gmsgop wrote…

Badgers Drift wrote…

SteveSCA wrote…

TheTruthHurts wrote…

Ok, so I have kinda watched the controversial April 1st council webcast, all interesting but does anyone know if the really juicy parts (yeah I know, I am exaggerating) have been edited out?

People should see this. It sums up everything that's wrong with the dictatorial, antidemocratic manner in which this Council is being run. The webcast is at: http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200621/trans parency/827/council_ webcasts/2 Gwen Swinburn's contribution starts at the beginning of section 2 (Agenda item 4). She is talking about the Unesco bid being an example of the Council's poor governance, secrecy and lack of transparency, and refers to Lendal Bridge as another instance of this. At this point Simpson-Laing rudely interrupts her, accuses her of "going onto a different topic" (she is still talking about governance as she is supposed to be doing) and cuts her off. In section 3 (Agenda item 5), after about seven speeches in favour of the Unesco bid (and none against), Gwen tries to make an interjection at 16.13. It's hard to hear what she's saying, but Simpson-Laing threatens to throw her out of the meeting for interrupting. Then, at 18.30, Simpson-Laing starts to criticise Gwen's earlier comments. Gwen obviously interrupts, and the sound is then muted for about 45 secs "due to disturbance" (according to the caption). Finally, Simpson-Laing calls a vote and unsurprisingly, since no dissenting points of view have been allowed, this is carried unanimously. An absolute mockery of democracy.

I watched the live webcast, and have seen the recording. Simpson-Laing is a disgrace. She is an autocratic bully! The gagging proposal she and Alexander asked 'expert idiot' (a Julia Middleton [of Common Purpose] term) to draft late last year, which was thankfully kicked out by Labour members, was prophetic, and shows how this despicable politician and her equally despicable boss wish to operate. Their marxist approach to democracy - silencing dissenters - is manifest in this shameful exhibition. York is not safe whilst lunatics like TSL, JA and DM are councillors - kick them out as soon as we can !

stevesca/BD Sorry folks just saw this. The point at which I first interjected was when TSL made snide comments directed at me not supporting the unesco bid ( I have only ever asked for cost benefit to public purse). It became more serious a bit later when she infringed my data protection rights from the chair by referring to what she imagined was my former workplace in disparaging terms and blatantly once again misrepresenting what I had said. At that point I got up approached the speakers table and said loudly, as I had no microphone (not shouting as she had done) that she had no right to say about my work place, or to knowingly misrepresent what I had said in such a way. I repeated loudly and clearly that I wasn't against the unesco bid, in fact even for it- but not without knowing the costs and benefits to the public purse. Of course they cut off everything I said. But helpfully left the damaging DPA breach and abusive misrepresentation on, so I have the evidence. I guess there is a God there, or at least staff who recognised her inappropriate behaviour. The cabinet member next to her as we can all see was trying to shut her up- and I appealed to him twice ( poor guy he shrugged his shoulders in despair). Meanwhile I have asked for the webcast, & transcript so I can take advice ahead of deciding which action to take. Citizens of York cannot be treated like that by Tracey Simpson Laing - just imagine, she thought she could be an MEP - not with behaviour like that on permanent record Tracey. Gwen Swinburn - stand by for updates!

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here